Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [31st July],
That so much of the Lords Message [26th July] as relates to the British Railways Bill be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Question put and agreed to.

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the British Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with that Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;

Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Industrial Tribunals (Employment Protection)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of industrial tribunals administering the Employment Protection Act.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): Yes, Sir, I am satisfied with the operation of the industrial tribunals. Last week, my right hon. Friend laid some amendments to their procedure regulations which I hope will enable them to operate better still.

Mr. Ridley: If the Minister is satisfied, is he aware that he is the only person who is? Most people think this is biased as a system of justice. Having admitted in "Into the Eighties" that some legal points need amending in the Employment Protection Act, will he now consider transferring administration under that Act to the courts, where we can at least be assured of impartiality?

Mr. Walker: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman continues to display his utter ignorance and insensitivity about these matters. First, the question is not about the Employment Protection Act but about the industrial tribunals. The industrial tribunals have been established since the Industrial Training Act 1964 and have a wide range of functions under different statutes.
The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that jurisdiction be transferred to the ordinary courts reveals that he, with many of his hon. Friends, has learnt absolutely nothing from their disastrous experience with the Industrial Relations Act.

Mr. George: Does not the Minister agree that we on the Labour Benches deprecate the attempts being made by the Opposition to destroy not only the industrial tribunals but organisations such as ACAS? Although criticisms may be made about the operation of the tribunals


and ACAS, it would be more in the interests of the House and of working people and employers if these improvements were looked at constructively rather than destructively.

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend is quite right. I hope he has noticed that there seems to be a sustained and orchestrated campaign to denounce not only the industrial tribunals and ACAS but the whole range of employment protection legislation which was constructed in recent years and which has resulted in an enormous improvement in industrial relations.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The Minister referred just now to making the operation of tribunals even better. In that regard, will he, when making appointments to fill casual vacancies through retirement and the like, consider especially appointing those with a background in smaller businesses?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman will know that appointments are made through nominations from a wide range of bodies, and I hope that those bodies will take account of the point he has made. It is important that on the panels we have people with the experience to which he referred.

Mr. Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that redress for unfair dismissal is a fundamental and basic right that must be preserved? Does he accept also that the industrial tribunals unfortunately have become somewhat legalistic, basically because employers are using lawyers increasingly to promote their cause? Does he accept, finally, that there may be adequate cause for awarding costs out of public funds in certain cases that are brought frivolously?

Mr. Walker: I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend about the importance of the unfair dismissals provisions, which, incidentally, were introduced by the Conservative Party in the Industrial Relations Act, one part of which we preserved.
Secondly, there is common ground between the two Front Benches that there has been an excessive tendency towards legalism. We want the tribunals to operate as informally as possible, and I hope that those concerned with the tribunals will take note of what the House has said on this matter.
With regard to meeting costs out of public funds, we dealt with that matter in the debate in November last year. I was not then persuaded of the arguments, and I doubt that I would be now.

Mr. Hayhoe: Is the Minister aware that we welcome the changes which have been made in industrial tribunal procedures which somewhat belatedly meet some of the criticisms that were made during the debate last November? Does the Minister also appreciate that further major changes are needed both in the composition of tribunals and the way in which they operate in order to ensure fairness for all concerned, both employees and employers?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman reminds us that we had a full debate in November last year. In June this year we had a debate on the Adjournment when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) raised some of the points about which anxiety has been expressed.
The part of the hon. Gentleman's question about which I would express some concern is the implication that somehow the tribunals act unfairly. I am sure that on reflection he does not believe that.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment—probably next week or the week after.

Unemployment Figures

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many times since March 1974 monthly unemployment figures have shown an increase and how many times a decrease.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): For Great Britain, based on seasonally adjusted figures which exclude school leavers, there were 34 increases and 14 decreases.

Mr. Jessel: Is not the hon. Gentleman ashamed of that disgraceful performance? Can he estimate what will happen to unemployment figures over the next two or three years?

Mr. Golding: As to the reasons for the unemployment, I am certainly not


ashamed—concerned, yes, but not ashamed. We are not prepared to make an estimate. The figures will depend upon the co-operation we receive from the country in our anti-inflation policies.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my hon. Friend accept that in the past four years the work force has grown by over 750,000? That being the case, and as it was known during the period of the last Government, what plans, if any, did he find in his Department for dealing with it? If there were no plans, does it not show that the Saatchi and Saatchi cover-up is the grossest of hypocrisy?

Mr. Golding: The answer must be that no plans were prepared for the very large increase in the work force. It is significant that even last month the rise in unemployment was the result of female unemployment increasing by a far greater amount than the drop in male unemployment.

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when the figure for the total number of unemployed was last over 1½ million.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The figure for the total number of unemployed was last over 1½ million at September 1977.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the Secretary of State believe that it is just an extraordinary coincidence that every Labour Government since the 1920s have experienced a substantial growth in unemployment during their tenure of office? Given that these periods of Labour Government have not always coincided with world recessions, is it not about time that the Government began to consider whether it might be the policies of Labour Governments that create this phenomenon?

Mr. Booth: I do not think it was any more a coincidence than that it was a coincidence that unemployment rose very rapidly under the last Conservative Government.

Mr. Madden: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the use of bogus unemployed people in advertising material by PR men plugging the Tory Party does nothing to lessen the cynicism among

real unemployed people about the lack of determination by some politicians to combat unemployment?

Mr. Booth: Yes, I certainly agree with my lion. Friend. It is possibly to be regretted that the advertising agency involved used its existing employees and did not take on additional employees, which might have had a slight element of merit.

Mr. Budgen: Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the greatest growth areas in unemployment is among females and that that is caused mainly by the effect of the sex discrimination legislation?

Mr. Booth: It is certainly true that the change in the unemployment figures over the past month was due to a rise in the number of unemployed females. In fact, there was a drop in the male unemployment figures. I do not agree that the sex discrimination legislation is the reason. It may owe something more to the new method of national insurance collection which, very properly, encourages women to register as unemployed when they are seeking work.

Mr. Loyden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the Opposition display hypocrisy and cant on this issue, the Labour Government have the responsibility of dealing with the urgent problem of unemployment? Does he also agree that we cannot wait for long-term solutions, and that immediate short-term solutions are necessary, particularly in those regions where unemployment is high at the moment?

Mr. Booth: Yes, I accept that. There is no justification for reliance wholly on short-term or on longer-term solutions. We must have a proper combination of both, and proper regard must be paid to those areas which are suffering the most severe effects of unemployment.

Mr. Prior: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over a period of about four and a half years he has been appearing at that Dispatch Box and producing every month the same sort of shuffling off of responsibilities that he has shown again this afternoon? Is that the best that he and his hon. Friends can do—to criticise a rather good advertisement put out by the Conservative Party, which ought


to shame the Labour Party for its miserable economic performance over the past four and a half years? Surely he can do better than that.

Mr. Booth: Our concern about the social, individual and economic effects of unemployment is such that nothing that the Conservative Party is likely to produce in the way of advertisements will in any way affect our determination to deal with the problem in a thorough-going way.

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment; and by what percentage it exceeds the figure for February 1974.

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Booth: At 6th July, 1,512,487 people were registered as unemployed in Great Britain.
At 6th July, the number registered as unemployed in Great Britain, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, was 1,309,900. This figure was 1383 per cent. higher than at February 1974. Seasonally adjusted figures have to be used to allow proper comparisons between different months in different years.
I am particularly pleased to note that the Manpower Services Commission has today announced approval of 28 area plans which envisage the provision of 200,000 places in the youth opportunities programme and 35,000 temporary jobs in the special temporary employment programme by March 1979.

Mr. Latham: Does not the Secretary of State agree that there is one simple fact apparent to the British people? Is it not true that, despite all the bogus compassion of this Government, unemployment is now 1383 per cent. higher than when the Conservative Government left office?

Mr. Booth: I do not know whether that simple fact it apparent to the British people. If it is, I hope that another simple fact will be made equally apparent by those who want to publicise that figure, and that is that there are more

than 500,000 more people in employment now—men and women employed part-time and full-time—than there were in 1971 and 1972 when the Conservative Government were in office.

Mr. Bidwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no one on this side of the House yields to any Member on the other side in his concern to reduce the current unemployment level, and that the vast majority of people in the land do not believe that a Tory Government would do better than the present Government in their endeavours?

Mr. Booth: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, and if people had any doubts about that they would only need to reflect on some of the courses advocated by leading members of the Opposition over the past four years.

Mr. Knox: Why is not the right hon. Gentleman reacting to these disgraceful figures in the same manner as he reacted when employment reached about two-thirds of its present level for a very brief period when the previous Conservative Government were in power?

Mr. Booth: Possibly one of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman might care to consider is that part of my reaction was reflected in the announcement that the area boards have approved 200,000 places to come into effect under the youth opportunities programme. In other words, we are doing something about unemployment that was not done by a Conservative Government in 1971 to 1974 facing a rapidly rising rate of unemployment.

Mr. Noble: Has my right hon. Friend any assessment of what the level of unemployment would have been had the Government accepted the pressures from the Opposition with regard to, for example, British Leyland and Chrysler? What would have been the effects on the economy if the NEB had not intervened in those two cases'?

Mr. Booth: There is little doubt that in those two areas alone more than 100,000 jobs could have been lost, but, as to the total effect of our measures, one would have to take into account the fact that today in this country 300,000 people are being assisted by Department of Employment measures.

Mr. Lawrence: Is the Secretary of State aware that there would be 170,000 more people working under Labour but for the defence cuts, and that another 143,000 people are projected to be unemployed in the next year in the defence sphere? How on earth does that square with the Secretary of State's assertion that the Government are doing everything to increase employment?

Mr. Booth: If we are talking of squaring assertions, I should like to hear someone on the Conservative side of the House square the assertion that public expenditure cuts in defence create unemployment while public expenditure cuts in the social services help to sustain employment.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the announcement by the Manpower Services Commission that 200,000 jobs will be provided for young people under the youth opportunities programme is to be welcomed, but will he ensure that there is full co-operation from the trade union movement and also from employers working through the CBI?

Mr. Booth: The 200,000 figure to which I referred means 200,000 places, and therefore I hope to see in the course of the full development of the programme some further provision for these young people. But I agree with my hon. Friend that it is of the greatest importance that we have the co-operation of employers and trade unions in maximising the benefit to be derived from the programme. That is why I welcome the commitment of CBI and TUC commissioners within the Manpower Services Commission to making this programme the most effective that has ever been introduced for unemployed youngsters in this country.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. James Prior.

Mr. Prior: I never miss an opportunity of bashing this Government when I get the chance to do so. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what sticks in the gullet of the British people is the hypocrisy of the Labour Party which takes one view in Government and a totally different view in Opposition? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of the 100,000 opportunities now

available through the youth opportunities scheme—which we welcome—are likely to be taken up within the next month or so and, therefore, what fall he expects in the number of young unemployed between, say, now and the middle of October?

Mr. Booth: I expect very few of them to be taken up in the next month, because the programme will not start over the country as a whole until 1st September. There are some areas where we have made exceptions to this general rule because of special problems. I expect that beyond 1st September there will be a fairly even take-up, month by month, leading through to next Easter, by which time I hope the programme will have covered more than 200,000 youngsters. Our plan is to get an even entry into the places, so that the places are fully manned throughout the 12-month period.

Working Week

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Employment by what percentages he estimates a shorter working week in manufacturing industry would increase employment and also costs per unit of output.

Mr. Booth: Calculations of the effect on employment and costs per unit of output of any reduction in the working week are sensitive to variations in assumptions about overtime, productivity, competitiveness and other factors. However. I would refer the hon. Member to the article on work-sharing which appeared in the April edition of the Department of Employment Gazette and which illustrates the range of effects which might result from work-sharing.

Mr. Miller: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply, but does he agree that it is very important to increase this country's utilisation of installed capacity and the efficiency of production? Can he point to a single measure taken by his Department that is aimed in that direction?

Mr. Booth: Certainly. A whole series of measures were introduced by my Department to do that. The special temporary employment programme and the temporary employment subsidy have enabled a number of firms to use and adapt capacity for better utilisation. On


the specific question of work-sharing, I entirely agree that if work-sharing arrangements can lead to a better utilisation of capacity they are to be encouraged. Double-shift working in place of single-shift working would be a classic example of something that both shared work and led to a greater utilisation of capacity. But I believe that it is better to negotiate changes of that kind plant by plant than to lay them down as a matter of national policy.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the grand melodrama of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), every endeavour of the Labour Government to create more employment has been opposed by the Tory Party? Does he agree that if the Tory Party had been in power and had had its way on more and more massive public expenditure cuts, unemployment in this country would have been massively higher?

Mr. Booth: Had we followed the advice of many spokesmen in the Tory Party, we should have seen a massive under-utilisation of capacity to the extent that a number of firms which are now open and working would have had to close down.

Press Charter

Mr. Dodsworth: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress in formulating the press charter.

Mr. Harold Walker: I have nothing to add at this stage to what I told the House on 4th July.

Mr. Dodsworth: Does the Minister accept that it is a matter of very grave regret and concern to a wide range of people that there is no positive expression of opinion from the Government on the particularly urgent matter of the need to protect the right to supply information by journalists and editors on matters such as trade union affairs, immigration practice and policies and, indeed, on the affairs of Southern Africa? All these matters are in urgent need of clarification to ensure that journalists can put forward a clear point of view without sanctions being applied against them.

Mr. Walker: I am not sure whether I or the House will have followed that supplementary question. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the press and the newspapers should be free from improper pressures to distort news, I wholly agree with him. That is one of the obligations which will be laid by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 on my right hon. Friend when he prepares and lays the charter before the House.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Does not the Minister agree that the real threat to press freedom comes from the fact that more and more newspapers are owned by a small group of powerful individuals and that it is really a nonsense to link press freedom with the legitimate rights of a trade union to sign a union membership agreement?

Mr. Walker: It would be unwise for me to try to anticipate the contents of the proposed charter that my right hon. Friend will lay before the House, but I think that it is important to safeguard the freedom of the press from improper pressure from any quarter whatsoever.

TUC

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the TUC.

Mr. Booth: On 18th July.

Mr. Rooker: When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, will he press the importance of getting its affiliated organisations to make sure that the maximum number of workers' safety representatives are appointed and in situ by 1st October this year so that we shall see the greatest advance in industrial safety under this Labour Government since the first Factories Acts? No amount of lying and cheating by the Tory Party and its outside representatives will then alter that, and the point should be put across to the British people and to the millions of workers in industry and in the offices and shops who will benefit from this legislation.

Mr. Booth: I had hoped that most employers in this country would have been able to arrange that safety representatives were appointed in advance of the statutory obligation to do so, to which


my hon. Friend referred. But, as they have not, I shall gladly act upon his suggestion and raise the matter with the TUC and the CBI when I see them.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: In view of the earlier reply that unemployment will he drastically affected by the Government's anti-inflation policy, could the Secretary of State tell the House what the TUC's response has been to the 5 per cent. pay limit?

Mr. Booth: The TUC has been considering its response to the 5 per cent. pay limit in the light of considerations put forward by a whole number of sectional interests very properly represented there. We shall see how the TUC deals with this when claims come to be presented during the next round.

Mr. Litterick: When the Secretary of State next meets the TUC, will he undertake to discuss the amendments the TUC and perhaps he himself might think are now necessary to the Employment Protection Act, so that the practice of blacklisting is outlawed and men such as Victor Matthews, the owner and boss man of the Daily Express, who is so vociferous about the rights of individuals and who also participates in this as a member of the governing council of the Economic League, will not be allowed to carry on doing that?

Mr. Booth: The problem of blacklisting by employers has been with us for a very long time. So far no Government have devised an effective way within employment legislation to deal with this entirely. I think that we should continue to search for a solution and that those who organise workers should also seek to use their industrial strength where necessary to ensure that people are not blacklisted up and down this country because they pursue proper trade union rights.

Mr. Hayhoe: Will the Secretary of State condemn the blacking and blockading activities of the union SLADE which is putting people out of work? Is he aware that many of those affected are independent photographers, designers, and so on, who are being put out of work by one of the affiliated TUC unions et a time of high unemployment? Cannot he use his influence with the general council of the TUC to get the activities of SLADE modified in a major way?

Mr. Booth: When this matter was debated in the House my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment made perfectly clear his view—and mine—on the activities of SLADE.

Unemployment Trends

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the trend in unemployment so far in the current year.

Mr. Golding: The level of unemployment is still much too high and I would, therefore, prefer to see a stronger downward trend.

Mr. Dykes: Will the Minister promise not to answer with the usual waffle that we get from his Department? To show how badly we are doing, will he give the present specific figure for unemployment in France and Germany, together with the figure for this country?

Mr. Golding: The resources of my Department are not available to give precise figures of unemployment today in France and other countries.

Mr. Stoddart: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in spite of the apoplectic approach of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) on the matter of unemployment, if the policies of the Opposition were carried into erect—policies of cutting public expenditure and disbanding aid to industry—the unemployment figure would go up to 2½ million or 3 million?

Mr. Golding: I would not want to quantify the amount. I can confirm that, if the policies advocated from the Opposition Front Bench were implemented, unemployment would be substantially higher today than it is.

Mr. Hayhoe: Does not the Minister appreciate that in answering a Question from me yesterday he gave the comparative figures for unemployment? Is he aware that those figures show that unemployment is running at a higher level in this country than in the United States, Japan, France or Western Germany?

Mr. Golding: And international comparisons do not solve our problems. Later we shall be showing that there are more countries which have higher unemployment rates than we have. Certainly, if we are talking in terms of increases in levels


of the unemployment rate, those have been substantially higher in France than in this country in recent years.

Retraining Schemes

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he intends to strengthen the employment retraining schemes.

The Under-Secretary, of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): The Government have promised financial support to the Manpower Services Commission for the implementation of the proposals contained in the commission's report "Training for Skills—A programme for Action", which aims to improve the amount and quality of training in key skills. The commission is also undertaking a major review of the training opportunities scheme and is considering the future scale and balance of the scheme in relation to industrial training generally.

Mr. Renton: What can be the real success of employment retraining schemes, however good the idea behind them, until there is labour mobility? How can there be labour mobility until accommodation is easily available throughout the country? Does not the Minister agree that that is where the real failure of the Labour Government lies—that, at a time of rapidly rising unemployment, people have stayed in areas where there are no jobs because they are fearful of not getting housing in areas where there are jobs?

Mr. Grant: That is a very valid point, but it is not a problem that this Government alone have encountered. This has been a problem over many years. Most hon. Members have encountered it in their constituencies, and there is no easy solution to it.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: With regard to the MSC's statement this morning, is the Minister aware that it is stated therein that fewer than half of the work experience places available will be in employers' premises by March 1979? Does not he regard that as a retrograde step, since most youngsters prefer to get their training at a place of work rather than in establishments outside? Further, will he explain why there are only these limited areas of exemption where the schemes can start earlier than September,

because there are many places with more than 10 per cent. unemployment, including 14 work areas in Wales?

Mr. Grant: It will be wider. On the basic point raised by the hon. Gentleman, we shall have to wait and see how it works out in practice. I do not see a difficulty on the basis of the figures cited by the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, many of the people who do not receive their work experience at their place of employment to begin with will clearly go on to that situation.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that more and more retraining, if jobs are not available, is not too helpful? Will he therefore consider a mobility allowance to encourage people to move from districts where there is unemployment to districts where there is work? Will my hon. Friend also take into account our young people, who have difficulty in finding jobs, who are untrained, and who probably will have to change jobs three or four times in the next 30 years without having the necessary training?

Mr. Grant: There is a mobility problem. There is, of course, the employment transfer scheme which helps considerably in that way.
On the question of training and retraining, the real problem in getting young people into jobs arises when they have no skills to offer. I do not accept, therefore, that it is in any way a bad policy to train people, even though there may be difficulties in subsequently getting them into employment.

Skillcentre Instructors (Vacancies)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies exist for instructors in skillcentres in the Yorkshire and Humberside region; and how this figure compares with other regions in England.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that there are currently 21 immediate vacancies for skillcentre instructors in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. There are 120 immediate vacancies in the remaining six regions of England.

Mr. Hooky: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that information. Is he aware


that there is a serious under-use of skill-centres, and that part of that derives from the lack of success in recruiting instructors? What is my hon. Friend doing to look at the pay scales and conditions of service for instructors to put this right?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend raised this at Question Time last month, since when I have looked carefully at the pay scales and to what extent they may be a deterrent in recruitment. I do not think that they are. I think the pay scales compare fairly with comparable occupations in industry and with comparable occupations in colleges of further education.
I do not think that is the reason. The real reason for the shortage of instructors has been the rapid expansion of skill-centres and the sharp increase in demand for instructors.

USSR (Trade Unions)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent discussions he has had with the International Labour Oragnisation about the recognition by that body of the Association of Free Trade Union Workers in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics since his reply to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South on 6th June.

Mr. John Grant: The ILO has confirmed that its constitution does not provide for formal recognition of any trade union or organisation of workers or employers. It has, however, machinery for investigating allegations of infringement of the basic right to establish and join such organisations and, as I informed the House on 6th June, the case is now under investigation, but we cannot expect any report before the next meeting of the ILO governing body in November.

Mr. Blaker: Are not the rights which this association is claiming guaranteed to its members by an international convention which has been ratified by the Soviet Union? In view of the increasing concern felt in this country about breaches of human rights by the Soviet Union, will the Government represent to the United Kingdom members of the governing body of the ILO that any unnecessary delay in following up this important matter would be very regrettable?

Mr. Grant: We should not want to see any unnecessary delay. The United Kingdom Government's views on this are very clear, as they are generally on human rights. But it would be equally wrong for us to try to breach the due process of the ILO. It is a matter on which we have stood firm in the past and on which we want to continue to stand firm. All I can suggest to the hon. Gentleman is that he tables another Question which I can answer in November.

Small Finns (Employment Protection Legislation)

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effects of recent employment protection legislation on recruitment by small firms.

Mr. Noble: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effects of recent employment protection legislation on recruitment by small firms.

Mr. Litterick: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the effect of the Employment Protection Act on the level of employment, and particularly as it affects, or does not affect, small firms.

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effects of recent employment protection legislation on recruitment by small firms.

Mr. Booth: The recent report by the Policy Studies Institute "The impact of Employment Protection Laws" indicated that, in general, employment protection legislation is not having a significant effect on recruitment. That report coveted establishments with between 50 and 5,000 employees in manufacturing industry. The effect of the legislation on smaller independent firms in the sample was not significantly different from that on larger firms. Research has also been commissioned to examine in particular the effects of employment legislation on firms with fewer than 50 employees.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call first those whose Questions are being answered.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the information which he has now given answers completely the misleading propaganda put out by the Tory Party and that this Government have in fact done a tremendous amount to help small firms? Will he refer to the fact that there has been a small firms employment subsidy which has helped small firms to retain existing labour and has not hampered them as the Tory Party has suggested?

Mr. Booth: The small firms employment subsidy is to direct aid to small firms which take on additional labour. The size of the qualifying firm has been increased to 200, applying right across development areas and the special partnership areas. As to the effect of the legislation, those who would try to erect a myth to suggest that this legislation deters employers from taking on additional employees are doing a grave disservice to the efforts that are being made by people to solve problems of unemployment.

Mr. Noble: Does my right hon. Friend agree that pseudo political organisations such as NAFF and crypto trade unions such as the National Federation for the Self-Employed have tried to do a great deal of damage to legitimate employment protection legislation through their activities in the small business sector? What plans does my right hon. Friend have to ensure that trade unionists are informed of this through trade union branches and trades councils?

Mr. Booth: I hope that trade union branches and trades councils will he among the first to examine the report I have published of the survey made of these firms. When it is available, the special inquiry that is being conducted by Opinion Research Centre as a first step will be followed by a study in depth of individual cases of effect in small firms. I hope that until that is studied people will refrain from taking actions which clearly will militate against the best interests of people now seeking employment.

Mr. Litterick: In the light of the answer that the Secretary of State has now given the House, does he not agree that it would be greatly to the advantage of the Labour Party if the Conservative Party persisted in its opposition to the

provisions of the Employment Protection Act, in that it would confirm, yet again, the general impression in the country that the Tories are opposed to all progressive protective legislation for working people?

Mr. Booth: I trust that my hon. Friend will agree that it is significant that, although members of the Opposition decry the effects of the Employment Protection Act in general, they have yet to put proposals in particular as to what parts of the Act they would repeal if they ever got the opportunity to do so.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to exercise my discretion. I intend to call the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) and two Opposition Members before we go on to Prime Minister's Questions.

Mr. Madden: Does not the Secretary of State agree that certain Tory politicians and Tory front organisations have caused needless anxiety and confusion among small businesses, particularly about employment legislation? Will he ensure that the facts are sent to Saatchi and Saatchi so that there can be no excuses should that firm get its future advertisements wrong?

Mr. Booth: I can give the assurance that the facts will be sent to Saatchi and Saatchi, but I cannot assure the House, in so far as that firm acts as agent for the Conservative Party, that those facts would ever be reflected in its advertising.

Mr. Tim Renton: Will the Secretary of State get some personal experience before the next General Election and find time to visit, with me, small firms in my constituency to hear directly front them the extent to which recent employment protection legislation is stopping them from taking on more workers?

Mr. Booth: I am concerned about employment prospects in small firms in whatever constituency they happen to be situated. It is those in development areas and inner city partnership areas that have been particularly aided by measures put forward by my Department. I hope that they would be among the first to acknowledge that in doing what we have done to assist them we have not only brought about an improvement in the employment


situation in their areas but have helped a number of small businesses to grow in circumstances in which they could not otherwise have done so.

Mr. Prior: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if his party had paid more attention to the creation of real jobs in society over the past four years the Government would not be so worried now about the excellent advertisements by Saatchi and Saatchi which seems to sting them into rather guilty laughter?

Mr. Booth: At least those jobs in the small firms which have been aided by the small firms employment subsidies are what I would regard as real jobs. I doubt whether some of the jobs of those photographed in the Saatchi and Saatchi advertisements are any more real.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to continue Prime Minister's Questions until 3.32 p.m.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Coodhart: asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his public appointments for 1st August.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Goodhart: During his busy day will the Prime Minister try to explain to the British people why food prices have doubled in the past four years under a Socialist Government?

Hon. Members: Answer!

The Prime Minister: The answer has been given so often that I could not believe that the hon. Gentleman had brought his supplementary question to an end. As he knows, during the past 12 months food prices have increased by only 6·7 per cent., if my recollection is correct. That means that we have overtaken the irresponsibility of the Conservative Government, who left us with a legacy of an increased money supply that was totally intolerable.

Mr. Terry Walker: Could my right hon. Friend, during a very busy day, have talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to see whether something can be done to overcome the problems of the collaborative programme with the Americans concerning future projects in the aircraft industry? This matter is most pressing, as the Prime Minister knows.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Discussions with United States firms and with European Governments and firms are actively taking place now. Indeed, the most recent discussions with the European industry have been g encouragin and I hope that decisions will be reached before long.

Mrs. Thatcher: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Labour Party that it should be made harder for council tenants to buy their own homes?

The Prime Minister: It depends on the circumstances. Where there are enough council houses, it is the party's policy and the Government's policy that they should be sold, and, where there are not enough council houses, that they should be retained. It is a perfectly sensible approach.

Mrs. Thatcher: The question refers to discounts. Does the Prime Minister agree that council tenants will still be able to purchase their homes at a discount?

The Prime Minister: That depends on the circumstances again. There are no general rules about these matters. It depends upon the financial circumstances of the council and of the occupier.

Mrs. Thatcher: So the Prime Minister is prepared to deprive tenants of the discount they already have.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Loyden: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1st August.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart).

Mr. Loyden: Will my right hon. Friend give some thought today to the economy


and jobs? Does he not agree that Summit meetings relate to long-term problems, but that there is a need for immediate action? Will he consider what steps can be taken by a State enterprise to develop at an accelerated rate gas on the north-west coast that would revive the economy in that area and provide jobs in the construction and shipbuilding industries?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, considerable assistance has been given to the Merseyside area—indeed, a total of more than £300 million—which has safeguarded about 24,000 jobs. The progress report issued today by the Manpower Services Commission also shows some special facilities available, I believe, for Merseyside and Ellesmere Port.
As regards the development of the gas finds off the north-west coast, I believe that between 2 trillion and 3 trillion cu. ft. of gas is available there that would save us £2 billion on our balance of payments when developed. This is obviously a very considerable find and goes to show how we must use the riches that are there for the best benefit of our people and not for a short-term spending spree.

Mr. David Steel: May I ask a question about today's engagements? If the Prime Minister is having a meeting with the Secretary of State for Industry, as was suggested a few moments ago, will he discuss with him the continued dispute in the Post Office? Is he aware that, with the House going into recess, this matter affects constituents of every Member of the House? Indeed, a few weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman said that he would have a word with the Secretary of State about it. I wonder whether those talks produced any result.

The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State for Industry is paying very close attention to this matter and is handling it as best he can.

Mr. Mellish: During his busy day today, will the Prime Minister look at a situation which is becoming increasingly bad, a propos what the Leader of the Opposition just asked him—namely, that hundreds and hundreds of those living in inner London who would normally have had the right to transfer to outer London boroughs are now being denied

that right because the present Tory GLC policy is to sell? If this is to become a General Election challenge, many of us on this side of the House will willingly accept it.

The Prime Minister: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has drawn attention to the important qualification that I made —namely, that it is foolish policy, and the Conservative Party should not adopt it, that council houses should in all circumstances be sold irrespective of the needs of the people.

Mr. David Atkinson: Doubtless the Prime Minister will have in mind today the forthcoming General Election and, in particular, his party's manifesto. Can he give an assurance to the House and the country now that his manifesto will not be based on the Marxist-inspired "Labour's Programme for Britain 1976", which he himself described as the total sum of all his hopes?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asks whether I shall be considering a General Election today. The answer to that supplementary question is "No, I shall not." I am aware that the Conservative Party has made certain assumptions about an election. It is upon those assumptions that it is launching this huge advertising programme costing £2 million —unprecedented in British history—with which to beguile the public. I hope that, whatever may appear in anybody's manifesto, those firms, breweries and others, which are contributing freely by giving up poster sites will declare themselves, so that we shall know what benefits they hope to get from a Conservative Government.

Mrs. Castle: Has my right hon. friend had time to consider the reactions in this House, in another place and in the press to the Government's White Paper on the Official Secrets Act? Is he aware that the general view is that the proposals for section 2 will make criminal prosecutions for releasing information more likely, while doing nothing to make available to the public the information to which they have a right? Will he withdraw the White Paper and introduce proposals for a freedom of information Act?

The Prime Minister: It is quite true that the reform of section 2 has no bearing upon the release of information. The


two things are quite separate. That has always been so; I do not think that my right hon. Friend can just have discovered it. I originally gave evidence to the Franks Committeee in which I said that I thought there was no need to reform section 2, because its operation was clearly understood. However, the Franks Committee recommended it and the Government accepted that recommendation. If the House does not wish to reform section 2, the House must, in due course, say so. My views about this have been very ambivalent, since the section has operated with considerable satisfaction for so long, but the Government have reached their conclusion on it and will submit it to the House.
A great deal of information—much more than ever before—is given to the House by the Government, and I do not go beyond the words of the White Paper.

DUNDEE

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Dundee.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to visit Dundee.

Mr. Adley: In view of the widespread and mounting concern many people feel about the infiltration of the Labour Party by extreme Left-wingers, Marxists, Communists and Trotskyists, is the Prime Minister aware that many people will be disappointed that he chose to leave the meeting of the NEC last week before being able to support his hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) in opposing the candidature of Mr. Jimmy Reid, who is to be the candidate of the Prime Minister's party for Dundee, East at the next Election? What are the Prime Minister's views on this, specifically and in general?

The Prime Minister: As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is no ministerial responsibility for the selection of candidates. The type of McCarthyite sneer with which the hon. Gentleman always distinguishes himself may well rebound on his own head, because it may lead others to ask whether there are any former

Communists employed in the Centre for Policy Studies of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what is important, as the people from Dundee and every other constituency in this United Kingdom appreciate, is that the policy of this Government at home in the fight against inflation is to seek sensible co-operation from all sides of industry, and that overseas they seek sensible co-operation amongst all the industrial nations—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman—[Hon MEMBERS: "You are not missing much."!] I do not know if I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Molloy: In this endeavour, in seeking international co-operation in the fight against inflation, my right hon. Friend has played a pre-eminent part, and the only recalcitrants seem to be the Japanese Government, some Common Market commissioners and the right hon. Lady.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct, because if Conservative Party policies were adopted in Dundee there would be about 1,900 extra people out of work who are now in jobs. These are the people for whom special measures have been adopted under the various employment proposals. Indeed, if the Conservatives had the opportunity today in the country as a whole and all grants and subsidies which are said to be harmful were abandoned there would be 425,000 more people out of work.

Mr. Prior: Is the Prime Minister aware that he has just produced a totally unjustified smear and that all the laughter of Labour Members will not sound very good to the 1½ million unemployed that there are now in this country?

The Prime Minister: If it is a smear, I shall of course be willing to withdraw it, but what I never have had denied is the statement made in a speech by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), which I have repeated time after time, that all subsidies and grants are harmful. That was his statement, and the conclusion is that subsidies and grants should be abandoned. That


would lead to the unemployment of at least half a million more people.

Mrs. Bain: As the nomination of Jimmy Reid is virtually irrelevant to the future representation of Dundee, East in this House, can the Prime Minister, if he manages a visit to Dundee, concentrate on more serious matters? Will he first explain to the unemployed in Dundee why this Government have consistently set their face against an oil fund, the revenues from which could alleviate unemployment? Secondly, does he not agree that Dundee would be an ideal place to name the date of the referendum, or at the very least to name the date on which he will name the date?

The Prime Minister: In fact, in Dundee under various Acts a total of about 7,000 jobs have been safeguarded during the lifetime of this Government. I believe that that is fully appreciated by the people of Dundee.
The question of an oil fund has been argued out in this House, the House has reached a conclusion about it, and I have nothing to add to that.
As regards the date of the referendum, I believe that we must wait for the new Session to start in November, and then we can fix the date of the referendum accordingly.

BILL PRESENTED

COMPULSORY PURCHASE APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Mr. Michael Shersby presented a Bill to make changes in respect of compulsory purchase procedures and the functions of inspectors; to provide for the establishment of a tribunal to hear appeals relating to compulsory purchase; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 192].

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do meet on Thursday at Eleven o'clock, that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock, and that at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[The Prime Minister.]

Sir David Renton: wish to speak to the motion, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This is not the Adjournment motion. This is merely the motion dealing with the business on Thursday next. The Adjournment debate takes place on the second motion.

Question put and agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Thursday do adjourn till Tuesday 24th October.—[The Prime Minister.]

3.34 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I am sure that before we decide upon this matter the House will wish to consider what happened at Question Time last Thursday, when the Prime Minister, who I see is still in his place, said that the Government's undertaking given by the Lord President to refer to the Scrutiny Committee proposals for improved arrangements for debating EEC legislation had been faithfully carried out. Indeed, he added the words "to a scintilla" with the learning which we expect of him.
But the Lord President a few minutes later, in answer to business questions, asked to be released from that undertaking. That is a very unsatisfactory situation, and we should not be expected to adjourn for the Summer Recess without an explanation from the Leader of the House of his failure to honour the firm undertaking that he gave in the debate on 28th November with regard to finding better methods for dealing with EEC matters in this House. That is, of course, a question of immense importance to the country.
The right hon. Gentleman deserves to be quoted accurately, and, therefore, I refer first to Hansard of 28th November, at the foot of column 102. The right hon. Gentleman said:
I believe that it is of major importance that we make a fresh effort to see whether we can establish a better arrangement and a better record beween the procedures of the House and the procedures of the Common Market.
Later he went on to say:
The Government are conducting a fresh examination of all these procedures.
He then referred to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), who, in the words of the Leader of the House, asked
for a specific undertaking that if there are to be fresh procedures the matter should be discussed with the Scrutiny Committee. That is a most reasonable request",

said the Lord President. He added:
In any case, it would be an absurdity for the Government to embark upon a new method, and a new relationship between the Scrutiny Committee, the House of Commons and the EEC itself, without taking into account the experience of the Scrutiny Committee and without giving that Committee the opportunity to comment on any proposals that the Government might make. I give the right hon. Gentleman that undertaking, therefore.
He went on to pay tribute to the Scrutiny Committee and the work that it does on behalf of the House.
We are entitled to be told by the Lord President, if I may have his attention, exactly what, if anything, he has recommended to the Scrutiny Committee and, if he did recommend anything, what transpired.
I should also, in fairness to the Lord President as well as to the House—because it is part of the foundation of the case which I seek to make—refer to column 108 of the Official Report of 28th November 1977. As he was concluding his speech, the Lord President said:
I hope very much that all the proposals that we have"—
[Interruption.] On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not find it disconcerting, but I have to raise my voice rather in order to overcome the endless hubbub on the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member is entitled to be heard in silence in this House, or, if not in silence, in reasonable silence.

Sir D. Renton: At column 108, the Lord President is reported as saying:
I hope very much that all the proposals that we have for better parliamentary control will be brought forward in this Session, but I give the undertaking that if that is not possible the House will have an opportunity of deciding this matter if we have not been able to reach agreement on the more general question."—[Official Report, 28th November 1977; Vol. 940, c. 102–9.]
That was a more general question to which he referred.
That was eight months ago, and surely that is long enough for this Government or any Government to make up their minds on this extremely important matter. It is not that it is a matter of great complexity. Moreover, only one of the proposals put forward in the debate could


be said to be, in principle, controversial —that is to say, the "loophole", as it is now known. If I may remind the House, the loophole is the occasion when, even when the Scrutiny Committee has asked for a debate, a Minister might go to the Council of Ministers without a debate taking place and make an agreement with them so long as he comes back to the House as soon as possible and gives an explanation as to why the flatter was not debated first in the House and why he had to be in such a hurry to reach agreement with the Council of Ministers. That is the "loophole", and the question is still open and unresolved. There are different views about it on both sides of the House.
But there were other matters raised in the debate and constructive suggestions were made. I was then speaking from the Front Bench and I made five suggestions asking the Government for more time on the Floor of the House to discuss EEC legislation and other EEC matters. I also asked for important matters to be raised at a reasonable time and not so late at night, as so often happens. Admittedly, that would have meant using a bit more of the time of the House in ordinary hours for EEC matters. It would have meant using a bit less time for other matters. I grant that. But surely we must get our priorities right.
Whether we like it or not, our agricultural, economic and social policies are increasingly being decided by the Council of Ministers This is a continuing process.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: How did the right hon. and learned Gentleman vote?

Sir D. Renton: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt me?

Mr. Helfer: Yes. Would the right hon and learned Gentleman explain to the House how he voted on the Common Market? I think that some of us had the right to get up in this House and explain that that sort of thing would happen, but, it I remember rightly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was one of those who supported our entry into the Common Market and supported the legislation put forward by his hon. Friends. I regard what he is saying as a slight cheek

Sir D. Renton: I am so grateful for that interruption, because it enables me to remind the House that I have always voted for the Common Market. I have always hoped that this House would work out procedures which would enable the Common Market to do better, as well as enable us to do better in the Common Market, in order to make a reality of our partnership in the EEC and in order that we might take the fullest advantage of our membership of it. There is no question of the hon. Gentleman being able to accuse me of inconsistency in this matter. Indeed, this speech is an attempt to further the views that I have always held and put before the House.

Mr. John Prescott: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir D. Renton: Unless we develop practices which will enable the House to consider European affairs more thoroughly—[Interruption.] I know that the Left wing does not like this, but it must face up to the reality of the situation. Unless we make better arrangements, we shall fail to get the best advantage of our membership of the EEC.
That is why it was a great shock last Thursday to hear the Lord President ask to be released from his undertaking, having meanwhile, presumably, failed to propose better arrangements for debating EEC affairs. Certainly he failed to give the House the opportunity that he promised we should have of considering how to do so.
Indeed, but for this matter having been raised during business questions last Thursday by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs Castle), among others, we might not have this opportunity now. But, now that we have the opportunity, we expect the right hon. Gentleman to explain his breach of his undertaking. The electors will want to know the reason why. If it is something that has happened behind the scenes, that is a case for asking for more open government. We are asking why the Government are unable to help us to achieve these better arrangements so that, in pooling our sovereignty with others, not only do we gain an important stake in Europe but this Parliament is enabled to influence what happens there.

Mr. Neil Marten: As it is likely that a Conservative Government will be in office within a reasonable time, and as my right hon. and learned Friend said that at one stage he was speaking from the Front Bench, may I take it that what he is now saying should happen would happen if a Conservative Government came into office? In the light of a coming General Election, it is important to know that.

Sir D. Renton: That is a question which should be addressed to the Front Bench. All I can say is that my speech on that occasion was not made without careful consideration and consultation.
However, we are not today challenging the Opposition Front Bench but are challenging the Government for their failure. We are challenging the right hon. Gentleman for a breach of his undertaking. We wonder why there was a discrepancy between what the Prime Minister said at Question Time last Thursday and what the right hon. Gentleman said ony a few minutes later. I trust that we shall now receive the explanation we deserve.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am loth to worry the Chair unnecessarily, but I am somewhat disconcerted. I had hoped to seek the leave of the House to bring in a Ten-Minute Bill on the subject of libel, but I appear to have been overtaken by hon. Members complaining of the need to adjourn. I wonder whether you could explain exactly what has happened, Mr. Speaker. I should be exceedingly loth to see the House adjourn before I had had the opportunity to introduce my Bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady will have noticed that her motion to seek leave to bring in her Bill is the fourth on the Order Paper. Her motion is not Government business, as well she knows. Therefore, it is not covered by the provisions of the 10 o'clock business motion. Like any other business today, it is subject to interruption at 7 o'clock, when opposed private business will be taken.
If proceedings on the hon. Lady's motion are begun before 7 o'clock—if the debate on the Adjournment motion collapses—-and if the hon. Lady begins before 7 o'clock but has not completed her speech before that hour, she can be

assured that it can be resumed after the completion of the opposed private business, if that has finished before 10 o'clock. However, if the opposed business runs until 10 o'clock the hon. Lady's motion is subject to the rule of interruption at 10 o'clock and cannot be continued beyond that hour. On the other hand, if the hon. Lady's motion is not reached at all before 10 o'clock, which is a possibility, it can be moved after that hour only if there is no objection or opposition.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If there should be a decision to adjourn, in the terms of the motion now before the House, would there be a great deal of point in the hon. Lady's proceeding with the introduction of her Bill, as it will be difficult for it to obtain a Second Reading, go through Committee and go to another place? Has not the hon. Lady even more difficulties than you have already outlined, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Several hon. Members have had difficulties in the past few weeks in bringing in Ten-Minute Bills. May I repeat that we have opposed private business at 7 o'clock. A large number of right hon. and hon. Members have indicated that they hope to take part in this debate. I hope that that will be borne in mind.

3.50 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I shall be brief, but I wish very strongly to support the protest of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton).
I can understand the feeling of cynicism of some of my hon. Friends when we hear those who supported our entry into the Common Market now corn plaining when they find there are difficulties in exercising proper control by this House of Commons over what happens in the Community.
The point we are discussing this afternoon is not related to the merits of the proposition that was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 28th November 1977. I think it is too modest a proposition to warrant all the excitement that it has caused. All that he was asking was that, where the Scrutiny Committee


recommended that a piece of legislation or a Commission proposal to the Council of Ministers was of sufficient importance to be considered further by the House, it should be considered on a motion before any decision was taken by British Ministers in the Council of Ministers.
That gave us no absolute control. Indeed, the proposal was so modest that I find it incredible that any Government should have difficulty in accepting it. It certainly would not have involved an amendment to the Treaty of Rome or any of the profound reforms that some of us would like to see. Therefore, I am not concerned with the merits of that, but I am concerned about the fact that my hon. Friend put a motion before the House which was withdrawn as a result of an undertaking by the Government. That undertaking is not being kept.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman read out most of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on 28th November 1977. I have no doubt where the Lord President's heart lies. It is that which makes me even more anxious about what has happened. I am absolutely convinced that, left to himself, my right hon. Friend would have come back to the House with proposals even more radical than those of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South. His speech on 28th November demonstrated clearly where his own instincts lay. But what matters is that he promised us an examination of the whole question as to how we could improve the control by this House of Commons over decisions in the EEC.
My right hon. Friend said:
If we find that such an examination is taking so long that my hon. Friends begin to say that the procedure is being used as a device to avoid considering this kind of motion, we shall have to bring the matter back to the House. That would be done by the Government, and not by individual Members."— [Official Report, 28th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 108.]
When challenged as to whether the proposals would be brought back before the end of this Session, my right hon. Friend gave the undertaking to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already referred.
That undertaking has not been kept. I find it profoundly disturbing that what

has happened is that some of my right hon. Friend's colleagues in the Cabinet have not allowed him to keep his word. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is obvious. I am no longer a member of the Cabinet. I am divining, just as any hon. Member would. But, knowing my right hon. Friend, that is quite clear to me. He would not cheat on his word. I say advisedly that this matter is very worrying. It is the second time within a matter of weeks that some members of the Government have refused to honour an undertaking.
I refer to the undertaking to introduce a freedom of information Bill which was included in our manifesto at the last General Election, laying the onus on public authorities to justify why information should be withheld. We were merely told "We are not going to do it." That, effectively, is what we have been told. We are told that talks with the Scrutiny Committee have not been concluded, and all the rest of it. But that undertaking was given in November 1977. It was not given yesterday. There has been plenty of time.
I rise this afternoon to support my right hon. Friend and, through this debate, to tell his Cabinet colleagues that we are profoundly alarmed by the indication of their collective unwillingness to do anything effective about strengthening the control of the British Parliament over what happens in the EEC.

Mr. Marten: Was the right hon. Lady here at Question Time last Thursday when I raised the matter originally with the Prime Minister? I suggested on that occasion that there should be an all-party agreement on the matter right now, before we go into recess, in case there is a General Election and in case the Government change, in which event the Conservative Party will be able to accept the undertaking given by the Leader of the House. Does the right hon. Lady agree with that?

Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. I agree entirely with what he said in the interruption he made in the speech of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire. I do not expect enlightenment from the Opposition Front Bench. In fact, I expect far


greater obscurantism from that Bench. The Opposition Front Bench will not fight for the rights of the British House of Commons. After all, the Conservative Party took us into the EEC in the first place, on terms that were derisory from the point of view of protecting the interests of the British people.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) is quite right. An all-party agreement would be the right solution. But, clearly, the initiative must come from the Government. The tragedy is that we have not even had an initiative to get an all-party agreement. It is right, therefore, that this House should register its anger at the way in which its trust has been betrayed. My trust in my right hon. Friend remains as strong as ever. I speak this afternoon only to back him up.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene in this debate, because I believe that the House should not adjourn until it has considered a most important and little-publicised document entitled "Future World Trends". It is a discussion paper on world trends in population, resources, pollution and so on and their indications, which was published by the Cabinet Office back in 1976 and which, to my knowledge, has not been debated in any adequate way since that time. The Government said in that document that it was an interim document. I hope, therefore, that the Government will feel able to publish the results of their continuing discussions arising from the document and that we shall be able to have a fuller debate on the matter in this House in the not too distant future.
The first subject dealt with in the document was population. The document pointed out—I believe quite rightly—the difficulties of demographic forecasting. It said that whereas the population of the developed countries might not stabilise—according to the projections—until about 2050 at about 1·5 billion people, the population of the developing countries seemed likely to grow, according to the authors of the document, from the present figure of some 2·8 billion to about 10 billion in that same year. There is a considerable imbalance between the two.
The authors pointed out that a delay of less than one generation by the Governments in the developing countries concerned in achieving what is known as zero population growth could mean an increase of as much as 80 per cent. in the eventual population of those developing countries. Even if fertility rates were reduced to replacement level now, the age structure of the populations in those developing countries would mean that the overall population growth in those parts of the world would continue for at least another two generations. Hence the importance of the conclusion of the Bucharest conference on population some time ago that the necessary precursor to population control is adequate economic development in the developing countries themselves.
The second subject that the document dealt with was food and agriculture. The document pointed out in a quite unexceptionable way that agricultural production throughout the world is limited by natural resources and by economic maldistribution. It also pointed out that about one-quarter of the globe's land surface is cultivable but that of that area only about 15 per cent. is now irrigated. The conclusion was that perhaps twice as much could be irrigated as is presently the case. That is an important implication for the development policies of the countries in question. However, the document made clear that this implied the need for appropriate capital investment in rural development in the developing countries and the need for adequate labour and distribution systems and, furthermore, the prospect of reasonable economic returns for the people farming the land.
In all these ways the responsibility, as paragraph 26 of the document made clear, rests very firmly in the first place with the Governments of the developing countries themselves. But it still leaves unresolved some very real world-wide problems concerning food and agriculture, such as the different dietary patterns ant' demands of different countries and societies and the fact that if people are encouraged to eat lower down the food chain they are being fed in a more effective way; the influence of climatic changes, which people are now beginning to investigate to a greater degree; the impact of multinational companies upon the development of food and agriculture, particularly in


the tropical zones; and, above all, the different models of development that there are for these societies in the developing countries and the fact that, if the model of development is one of single cash crop economy with a view to getting scarce foreign exchange, this may be fine and dandy from a foreign exchange point of view but it is not very well equipped for providing the country with the possibility of self-sufficiency in agricultural production.
The third subject on which this excellent document touched concerned minerals. It is interesting that the records, so far as they are available, show that the average real price of many minerals has remained almost constant for about 80 years. The remaining recoverable reserves of minerals in the world are therefore very much a function of price, investment, technology and now, of course, politics itself. We know how much political considerations intervene in all these matters.
It is significant that the House should know that recycling is now an important aspect—or ought to be—of minerals policy. The United Kingdom, for example, gets about 26 per cent. of all its aluminium and about 62 per cent. of all its lead in this way. In paragraph 34 of the document there is a clear pointer to the fact that there ought to be a more coherent policy on mineral availability than this Government, or any Government, have had for a long while.
It is rather deplorable that, in answer to recent parliamentary Questions which I have put down to the Prime Minister and other Ministers asking where the ministerial responsibility lay for minerals policy, I got the very clear answer that it was divided, that there was no clear division of main responsibility, and the rather wet reply:
The procurement of raw materials is primarily a matter for the industries exploiting or using them."—[Official Report, 18th July 1978; Vol. 954, c. 152.]
The Government ought to think very carefully about the examples of Canada and Japan, where there are Government Departments which take the prime responsibility for minerals procurement for the countries in question, and a certain Department or Minister should focus very much upon ensuring that, as far as possible, conditions are right for investment by mining companies and waste in the

use of minerals is eliminated. The Government should consider the possibility of strategic stockpiles of one or two important minerals—something which is already done in the United States—and the Department of Industry should look very seriously at the whole area of product durability, because it is not until we eliminate the degree of planned obsolescence that we now have in many of our industrial processes that we shall be able to use our minerals and other scarce materials to the greatest effect.
The next area touched upon in the document is that of energy. Because that has been well discussed recently in the House and elsewhere, I shall not go into the matter in any detail. Suffice it to say that the document underlined very clearly the critical relationship between future energy growth and future economic growth. It made clear that the forecasts of future energy gaps, although slightly vague and indeterminate, none the less have been sensibly refined during the period since the document was written.
However, this has left the House and the country with one or two key problems to consider regarding energy. These include the lone lead times in supply and demand which make decision-making so difficult; the enormous investments required in the energy sector; the need for international co-operation—it is increasingly difficult for any one country to secure its energy supplies on its own—and the success or failure of Governments and societies in achieving energy conservation. In many ways energy conservation can achieve much more, much more quickly and much more cost-effectively than energy supply.
This still leaves one or two key questions for the future in relation to energy. For example, there is the rate of depletion of our offshore oil and gas reserves. There is the extent to which we regard a return to import dependence as acceptable and how we propose to handle that. There is the extent to which we believe in an essentially centralised energy supply, or a more decentralised one. Above all, there is the mismatch, if I may call it that, between the technological and political time scales involved.
One of the dilemmas of energy policy —indeed, it is a dilemma with which the


document is shot through—is that so many of these questions require sustained, honest effort by Governments over a period of a decade or more, and yet, of course, we know that this Government are shortly to come to a well-deserved end and, therefore, the political time scale is out of tune with the technological one.
The document also touched upon the question of pollution as a residual result of many of these matters. It is important for the House to recognise that pollution is a matter of increasing concern among people in this country and abroad. We are often told by Ministers that the United Kingdom has been fairly successful in dealing with air and water pollution, but, of course, there are considerable gaps, to which I hope that the next Parliament will pay attention. For example, there is the problem of motor vehicle emissions, which no Government have dealt with adequately.
It is also essential, as the document make clear, that the principle of the polluter paying for pollution should be established in every area. Clearly, the whole area of safeguarding the environment is a legitimate one for Government intervention. Yet much more must be done on an international scale if we are to ensure that the measures we introduce and the standards that we set in this country do not jeopardise the competitive position of British industries.
I believe that the public will be right to demand progressively higher standards of pollution control and that this will produce public goods which benefit the less-well-off sections of our society a great deal more than the rest. Perhaps it is significant that, within the OECD countries as a whole, the average spending on pollution control, taken overall, is still less than 2 per cent. of their GNP. There is, therefore, need for further effort. There should be no complacency in this area, because pollution is something about which advanced societies such as ours should care and about which they should be prepared to act.
Therefore, my final point is that all the strategic policy issues raised in the document draw our attention to one or two areas of wider concern, which I believe the House ought to be able to consider before it rises for the recess.

These include the extent to which the market can or will solve all these problems. I instance energy as a good example. There is the extent to which Governments have to intervene to do what will not be done naturally within the normal process of industrial events. Here one thinks of pollution. There if the extent to which, above all, we cam modify existing institutions or evolve new ones which take more account of these future considerations.
It was interesting that in a recent article in The Guardian by Harford Thomas in his "Alternatives" column, entitled "After 1984—the danger years", it was pointed out, quite rightly, that
Neither the parliamentary nor the Whitehall systems encourage serious consideration of long-term alternatives".
That is precisely what this Government, via the Cabinet Office, sought to do some years ago, and it is what I seek to illustrate and highlight in my speech this afternoon.
I hope that we shall get an assurance from the Leader of the House when he replies that in the fag end of the present Administration we shall have more serious consideration devoted to these long-term issues mentioned in the document. I hope, too, that we get that assurance from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), when he replies from the Opposition Front Bench on behalf of the new Conservative Government who, I am sure, will come in the autumn. I hope that consideration will be given to the establishment of a new, independent institution to bring these factors to the attention of successive Governments and that politicians in all parties will be prepared to attack what has been called by Mr. Ronald Higgins the "seventh enemy"—namely, ourselves—and the fact that all too often our time scales are not sufficiently forward looking. If we are to cope with what are often ignorance, myopia and apathy among the public about these important long-term issues, we in this House must set the example.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott: I think that I might take as a cue, in making one or two remarks this afternoon, the point made by the right


hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). He spoke of open Government and, indeed, half-way through his speech I felt that we should have been talking about open Opposition. If I recall correctly, the right hon. and learned Member honestly admitted that he voted for the Common Market. Therefore, calling for controls at the present stage seems to some of us somewhat hypocritical. During our debate an amendment was tabled to improve the powers of this House. If my memory serves me correctly the right hon. and learned Member voted against that amendment.

Sir David Renton: There was no vote. While I am on my feet, may I point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is perfectly consistent to be enthusiastic about our membership of the EEC and at the same time to want the House of Commons to be as close as possible in its consultations so as to have the right point of view expressed by Ministers in the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Prescott: There certainly was a vote on the amendment to which I referred and I tried to check it with the Library. Time is short, but I should still like to check that point. There certainly was a vote on the amendment to which I referred.
My background is a seafaring one and many of the people I represent are seafarers and fishermen. They are very concerned about their safety and livelihood. I want to put on record my appreciation of the Government's recent proposals to improve safety for seamen. Their death and accident rates are high. The announcement yesterday by the Government about improving safety by statutory controls for seamen is a considerable advance and I congratulate them on it, having demanded it for the last 10 years.
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that fishermen who are not covered by this safety recommendation are facing an increase in the number of deaths in their occupation. For example, between 1961 and 1963, taking the average of those three years, the death rate for fishermen was four times that of miners and 10 times that in manufacturing industry. Between 1974 and 1976 the rate had increased to 10 times that of mining and 50 times

that in manufacturing industry. I hope that the Government will bring in legislation dealing with statutory controls for fishermen. The Government are committed to reintroduce legislation in the next Parliament, but the Opposition have made clear, apparently, that they do not give a new Merchant Shipping Act a high priority. I hope that we shall have a statement from the Opposition to the effect that they will reconsider that attitude in view of the carnage in the seafaring and shipping world.
The second matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the House is the strike which began today, closing a number of the ports, and affecting my own as well as many other constituencies. This is of considerable importance and justifies a debate in itself. Part of the trouble is the attitude of the Opposition to the dock labour scheme. We witnessed this attitude a week ago. It is due in part to the application of the Government's inflation policy.
It is made clear that these men, who do engineering and maintenance work on the docks, were promised three years ago that they would have parity with the dockers within two years from 1974. They were promised by the British Transport Docks Board, as I am informed, that from today, 1st August 1978, they would receive that parity. Apparently they have gone on strike from today, arguing that if it can be paid, who is stopping it?
I put this question to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and perhaps he can pass it on to the appropriate Minister: are the Government denying payment of this parity agreement? Even though the White Paper is mentioned on these occasions, a close reading of it and the debates does not necessarily lead one to the conclusion that the Government are in any way directing—and it is supposed to be a voluntary principle. There is a great danger that the inflation policy will become self-defeating.
That is the second factor which could, within the next few weeks, cause a prolonged and continuing strike in many of our major ports, with considerable consequences for the Government's inflation policy, the continuation of commerce, and my constituents' livelihoods in the Humberside area.
The main point I draw to the attention of the House, in this short opportunity to ask the House not to adjourn, concerns prison policy. In Hull, there is a high-security prison. Almost two years ago, it was the centre of a particularly violent dispute—a riot, in fact—lasting five days. It was a riot which reflected considerable concern and distress within our prison system. It reflected a considerable lack of policy implementation—namely, that there had been developments within the prison system which were not following any coherent pattern, and that the policy tended to differ from prison to prison—so much so that governors in different prisons were considerably influencing the nature and type of policy being pursued at that time.
I want to bring recent developments to the attention of the House, some of which are before the courts and, therefore, I am not entitled to pass comment on the possible consequences of action. But there are, by the very nature of the charges being brought, certain implications that are very important in the development of problems within the prison service which may lead to similar explosions in our prisons, at witnessed by the Hull prison riot.
At that time, when one investigation was taking place into the causes of such riots, allegations were made about brutality—prison officers assaulting prisoners. This was denied by the authorities. It was certainly rejected in the report of the Fowler inquiry that took place into the causes of the Hull riots—the report was produced almost 12 months later—to which I gave considerable evidence of my investigations. The Fowler inquiry found that the charge was not proven and that the reaction in the prison was due to a number of reasons other than any possible assault on a prisoner.
The inquiry agreed that assaults had taken place and that four prison officers had been involved with a prisoner, but the inquiry found—as did the board of visitors—that the one prisoner had assaulted four prison officers. That is a matter on which one must make judgments. But the important point to gather from this interpretation is that it was argued, certainly by many of the prisoners to whom I was given access in a number

of prisons around the country after their dispersal from the Hull prison, that brutality was one of the major reasons for the riot.
In my own report, I referred to this. In paragraph 3.9, I said:
Certain matters, such as the allegations of assault by prison officers, are of a criminal nature and are presently being investigated by the authorities. I am not able to judge the validity of these allegations but mention them since, if they are substantiated by the inquiry, they will he extremely pertinent to the occurrence of the incidence.
By "the inquiry", I meant the Fowler inquiry, and it did not find proven the charge that assaults had taken place. However, these allegations were put to the police authorities. After two years of investigation, the police have now issued charges against 13 prison officers, one of them an assistant deputy governor. The nature of the charges are such that the events took place after the men—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing a matter where charges have been made. He will realise, therefore, that the matter is sub judice.

Mr. Prescott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to stray into that, and perhaps I have done so in making those remarks. The point I wanted to make is that it has been substantiated by the two year inquiry that there was sufficient evidence for the courts to consider a case. That is now before the courts. The whole case within my own inquiry and report was that I was not in a position to ascertain the justification for such charges. That is for the courts to do, and the matter is now under the due process of law.
I have no intention of reflecting whether these matters are substantiated. My point is that it appears that if one takes this matter, in advance of the process of charges, with other matters which have recently been announced, we have a breakdown in the prison system which is a matter for concern and debate by the House. I refer to those other incidents now.
For example, it has been announced in a case before the High Court, which does not affect individuals, that Parliament decreed, in a ruling, that prisoners have the right when allegations or charges have been made inside the prison system to make their case to the board of visitors


with the best possible opportunities available to them. They are entitled to a proper defence before the visitors' board. Apparently the courts have now ruled that even though Parliament decreed that that should be the aim, if it is denied to them—as in the case that is before the courts—there is no way in which any authority can see that it is implemented outside the Home Office.
At this stage, a prison board investigating any acts of indiscipline committed by a prisoner inside a prison should be able to consider the case. But if the members of the prison board decide that they will not listen to witnesses regarding the charges against an individual defendant, the defendant is denied the very elements of justice before the prison board which has the power to take away remission and deal with him in the way the courts deal with people outside prisons.
To that extent, Parliament has decreed that each man has the right, even in prison to the elements of justice. Apparently, the courts have ruled now that they cannot interfere, even if that justice is denied to a prisoner.
The second fact that causes concern about prison policy is the recent television allegation of the involvement of prison officers in gun-running and drug-trafficking. It was revealed in statements on television and by the prison officers involved. It has been announced publicly that two men have been suspended. I notice that the incidents at Hull did not lead to suspensions, but a television show did. That is another cause for concern for this House—justice and the happenings in our prisons.
The third matter was announced in a report published yesterday by the Home Office on increasing violence in prisons. Also it was announced yesterday in the press that there is an increasing number of murders inside our prisons, all connected with certain practices that are continuing unabated in our prisons.
The fourth area is the public reaction to some of these events by the prison officers—that if there is a further incidence of rioting or of trouble within our prisons, the officers will remove themselves from the place of trouble, go to the perimeter wall and allow to take place whatever may take place.
Whatever the reasons for the breakdown of confidence between the prison officers, the Home Office and others, there is no justification for their action. The matter causes considerable anxiety to my constituents, particularly those who live just outside the wall and who have to face the consequences should a similar prison eruption occur.
In addition, there is the present public conflict between the BBC, the police and the prison officers—access by the media into the workings of the police and the prison officers being refused for whatever reasons—so it must be recognised that it is time for Parliament to discuss these substantial breakdowns of confidence.
All these matters contribute to a breakdown in definitions and in the present operation of prison policy. I welcome the opportunity of a meeting soon with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, when I shall spell out some of the things that I believe need to be done, which were spelt out in my evidence to the Fowler inquiry. Since the riot two years ago matters have not greatly improved, a fact which causes me considerable alarm and leads me to believe that we shall see a greater breakdown of confidence and more violence within our prisons.
The House will accept that this speech is not an election winner. To say what I am saying does not necessarily gain votes, but it is a matter that concerns justice. It is a matter of a breakdown in an area for which we have entire responsibility. If we cannot provide proper time for debate of such an important issue at this stage, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will find the first opportunity to provide us with such time on our return after the recess.

4.26 p.m.

Sir John Eden: May I briefly return to the subject raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who was followed by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). They seemed to be referring to two matters, one of which was the specific and clear undertaking given to the House and to the Scrutiny Committee by the Leader of the House in connection with the control of this House over EEC


legislation. The second matter raised by both, although not so directly, was the content of any motion or formal procedural matter which the Leader of the House, on behalf of the Government, might bring before the House.
I should like to make one comment on the first matter as Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee. Last Wednesday the Leader of the House invited me to exchange one or two comments with him about his undertaking to the House. As it happened, this was just before the final meeting of the Scrutiny Committee in this Parliament before the House rises for the Summer Recess. After discussion with my colleagues in the Scrutiny Committee, I made clear to the right hon. Gentleman that it was not possible to comment properly on any resolution or any matter of that kind which we had not had sufficient time or opportunity to consider in depth.
I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will understand that though we might wish matters to proceed apace it is not possible to do justice to a matter of such substance at very short notice. Therefore, I accept the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend that there is a considerable amount of time between last week and November—a point which I am sure the Leader of the House also accepts—but that as between Wednesday of last week and the introduction of any motion, or any other matter that he might have had in mind, it is quite impossible for the Scrutiny Committee to do it justice.
The second matter, upon which I advance only a personal view, concerns the content of any resolution of the House, should we ever reach that point. I do not speak as Chairman of the Committee but advance a personal viewpoint derived from a practical observation of these matters during the time that I have been in the Chair of that Select Committee.
I believe that it would be impossible to have a resolution which did not allow for the exceptional activity which is often generated within the EEC. There have been occasions, are occasions and undoubtedly will continue to be occasions when it is in the interests of this country, and therefore obviously in the interests of the House, for Ministers of the day to proceed to an agreement in the Council

of Ministers before invoking the full scrutiny procedure in the House. It is most important that they are enabled to continue to do that, but that they should also be accountable to this House for the action they take. They must answer to the House and must justify to it any agreement to which they have been party, if, in the process of coming to that agreement, they have not invoked the full scrutiny procedure.
That said, there should be little difficulty in devising a resolution which would meet all the proper interests of the House. I am naturally anxious, as is every other right hon. and hon. Gentleman, that we continue to exercise effective scrutiny over EEC legislation and that the voice of this House is heard and observed by Ministers of the day.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Later this evening, or in the early hours, a number of London colleagues and I will hope to catch the eye of the Chair to talk generally about the problems of London and about the fact that decay is taking place faster than regeneration. I want to take the time of the House during this debate only to emphasise one separate, important event in London, about which the House should hear more before we adjourn, because it is a matter that goes far beyond the context of London.
I want to ask the Home Secretary for a statement to the effect that he will personally, preferably within the next few days but certainly within the next few weeks, visit the Brick Lane area of East London to try to reassure the local community about his concern with events there and to say that the Government will contemplate taking strong action to resist the outbreak of obscene racialism which has occurred there in recent weeks.
My right hon. Friend will perhaps realise why I referred to the later debate when I say that in the other context I shall be urging that non-London Members should visit London generally, because I think that they can get a false impression from looking at Trafalgar Square, the Mall, Whitehall and wherever they stay overnight. There are many aspects of London life of which they may be unaware. Certainly there is a general


sense of rundown and of social deprivation to be seen in the East End of London and, indeed, in some parts of my constituency of Paddington in the West. Many of us believe that it is those conditions that have made the Brick Lane area ripe for National Front recruiting and have provided the opportunity of exploiting those circumstances for racialist purposes.
I understand that the Home Secretary is prepared to consider—but no more than that at the moment—making a visit to the area. A number of us have been visited here this week, at our request, on behalf of the Labour Party in London. We have met representatives of the five East London boroughs and their community relation officers, and also of the Bengali community in the Brick Lane and Spitalfields areas. I do not know whether the Home Secretary is aware—I doubt whether the House is aware—of the seriousness of the situation we now face in those East London boroughs. I have no wish to trespass on a constituency matter, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) will recognise that this is certainly an issue which now has an all-London dimension.
What the community relations officers and the Bengali community have asked for in particular is that there should be a public judicial inquiry into events in Brick Lane. I hope that the Government can say before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess whether this is likely to happen. Whether it can be a public or a judicial inquiry may be open to question. But if there cannot be a public judicial inquiry, a public inquiry or a judicial inquiry, at least let the Home Secretary or the Government satisfy the local community that there is to be an inquiry of some sort.
I want briefly to underline the case for such an inquiry, and for a special interest by the Home Secretary, by referring to seven specific doubts which the local community feels. Whether those doubts are justified—whether or not some of the allegations are correct—does not matter. What matters is that very large numbers of people in the East End of London believe these things to be true. Since they believe them, some action to reassure them or to prove their doubts invalid is required.
First, there are complaints of the harassment of anyone whose skin is anything other than white in the belief that he may be an illegal immigrant, and of constant demands upon those people to produce papers to establish their right to presence in the country. That is one of the things that has undermined confidence in the police in that community in the East End. I understood that there had been assurances that, in general and at large, the police were not going to indulge in swoops of that kind.
Secondly, there is the belief that there is insufficient diligence when acts of violence occur—as they increasingly do—in the East End of London. It is true that the police have now arrested three youths charged with the murder of the Asian who was killed there not so long ago. But the local community believes that it is exceptional for the police to pay attention and to make arrests within a relatively short time.
The third point certainly warrants urgent attention from the Home Secretary. There is a belief—true or not—that within the police force in the East End there are some constables who are National Front sympathisers. The local community needs to be disabused of that suspicion. Indeed, when the Home Secretary recently gave an assurance that there were now 3,000 additional policemen in the East End of London, and when we suggested to the community relations officers that that should be some comfort to them, the response from people who are professionally concerned with trying to improve community relations was, "We do not want more police like those we are complaining about."

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: rose—

Mr. Fergus Mongomery: The hon. Gentleman has made a very serious accusation against the police. It is the tradition in this country that all policemen wear their number, prominently placed. Before the hon. Gentleman makes such allegations in the House of Commons, should he not check the numbers?

Mr. Latham: Perhaps I could give way to the other hon. Gentleman, to see whether he listened to what I said.

Mr. Aitken: I wish to put it to the hon. Member that he is in danger of abusing parliamentary privilege by making such an allegation without substantiating it and without giving the definitive evidence of the names of the individuals concerned and the grounds for suspecting that they are National Front members.

Mr. Latham: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the record will show me to be in order and that you would have drawn my attention to the fact if I had made such an accusation. I shall repeat the preamble to my remarks. These are things that are believed by very many people in the East End of London. I went out of my way to say that I do not know whether they are true. But I believe that the existence of these doubts, fears and anxieties makes the case for an inquiry and for positive official attempts to reassure the local community. I hope that the hon. Gentlemen who have just intervened will listen with care to my four remaining instances of the doubts of the local people and will understand why the local community has these fears and suspicions.
Fourthly, there are suggestions that not merely in the lower ranks of the police force but at higher levels there is not sufficient concern about arresting racist activity and dealing with National Front provocation in the East End. The Leman Street police station has been mentioned, and many of the local community who have themselves offered to be witnesses by personally arriving at Leman Street station complain that they have not been treated as members of the public coming forward to give information as evidence but have been herded off into a room and treated as though they were offenders in some way. The reception, treatment and attitude at Leman Street police station discourages these people from going there and lends credence to the suspicion that the police, if not antipathetic towards that community, are certainly not as sympathetic or as impartial as they should be.
Similarly, there were acts of violence against Asian workers leaving a brewery in the East End a short time ago. In any other situation, any hon. Member of this House would have supposed that given that act of violence one evening as workers left that brewery, the next evening there would at least have been police

present, however few in number and however inconspicuous. But their presence was so inconspicuous that it was totally out of sight, because it was non-existent. The fact that when Asians have been attacked by racist thugs one evening and the police are not present to watch events the following night is one of the pieces of evidence that encourage the local community and the Asian workers at that brewery to believe that the police are not doing the job that they should to protect them.
There is an even more worrying incident for which I have testimony from fellow members of the executive committee of the London Labour Party who were present to witness events in Brick Lane on the Sunday morning of the weekend before last. There is regularly a National Front pitch at the junction of Brick Lane and Bethnal Green Road. Some members of the community decided that it was about time that something less obscene and anti-racist was distributed from that pitch. They arrived at 5.30 a.m., so that they might be the first to stake a claim to stand and distribute their literature. They found the police there to bar them, and they were prevented from using that pitch. On the following Sunday morning, the police were there, not to prevent members of the National Front from occupying the pitch, but to provide them protection in order to do so.
When incidents of that kind occur, is it any wonder that the local community ask on whose side the so-called forces of law and order may be? Similarly, when a colleague was proceeding from one end of Brick Lane to the other during one Sunday morning confrontation, at one end were the Anti-Nazi group and at the other end were the National Front. When people passed from what I shall call the Anti-Nazi end of Brick Lane to the National Front end, they were diligently and assiduously searched by police for weapons. But when they moved back from the National Front end to the Anti-Nazi end, there was no similar interest to ensure that offensive weapons were not being carried. That occurred several times with people moving from one end of the road to the other. If that account is true, is it any wonder that people have doubts about the way in which the area is being policed?
Those are the seven points which it seems to me give cause for anxiety, and I believe that a visit by the Home Secretary and an announcement of his intention to do so is vital before the House goes into recess. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to announce this on behalf of the Home Secretary today so that he will have the opportunity to hear these matters at first hand and to sec some of these incidents at first hand. I hope, too, that the fact of his visit will be a contribution towards reassuring the local community.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Philip Holland: I believe that there is a strong case for delaying the beginning of the Summer Recess beyond 3rd August, particularly as we may well be talking about not just the date of the Summer Recess but the date of the end of this Parliament. My view is based on the need for this House to consider a matter of growing public concern—namely, the rapid spread of bureaucracy by the proliferation of unelected, unrepresentative bodies beyond the reach of Parliament and in many instances not accountable to anyone for the expenditure of large and growing sums of public money. I refer, of course, if I may coin a phrase, to the quango explosion. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have indicated their concern about the extent to which individual Ministers are bypassing parliamentary checks. They are doing this by exercising a growing power of personal patronage that currently fills 8,500 paid and about 25,000 unpaid, but influential, appointments.
Increasingly these jobs are being filled by present or past trade unionists, by Left-wing academics, who seem to have a lot of time on their hands, by ex-politicians from local and national levels, and by anyone else that the Minister who hires, fires and pays them thinks will acquiesce in the implementation of his plan. I do not criticise anyone for accepting a job in a quango. I am criticising the Ministers who appoint them and the way they are selected. The public have a right to know the sort of people who are being given these new positions of power in the land and why they are getting them.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: rose—

Mr. Holland: I shall give way in a moment.
These people who have been selected and appointed are our new masters in some respects and we have no say in their appointments.

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the hon. Member. So that we can raise this debate—the hon. Gentleman has raised an important subject—out of the gutters of the Tory Party to a level where reasonable men can discuss what is a particular problem, would the hon. Member give an example of a previous Conservative Minister ever advertising a quango job, as some of my right hon. Friends have done since 1974?

Mr. Holland: If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, he will hear that what I am proposing are changes for the benefit of the House of Commons and to restore power to the House of Commons for the future. I accept that all Administrations in the past have created bodies such as this. I am opposed to the way in which it is being done now and I am saying so. If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, he will find something in my speech that will be of interest even to him, although that is a rather difficult objective to achieve.

Mr. Cranky Onslow: It would be above his intellectual level.

Mr. Rooker: Yes, I was talking about gutters.

Mr. Holland: The new Executive style, currently, is to pass social laws designed to favour narrow sectional interests in our society and then to entrust their operation to official bodies composed of representatives of the very people they are intended to benefit.
Under the present Administration, even those quangos that were set up with the best of intentions have been degraded into predictably partial pressure groups. So we now have a conciliation service that is seen by many to be operating as a recruiting sergeant for the big battalion trade unions. We have an Equal Opportunities Commission that seeks to make women into stevedores and men into chambermaids whilst distorting the


English language with the need for such abortions as "chairperson".
The trouble is that the myth has been created that if we set up a separate body outside the confines of Government and Parliament we shall hear the voice of the people through the members of that body. Of course, all that we hear are the voices of those who are on that body and who have been carefully selected for their views. The present Government are stuck in tramlines on the quango trail. They feel compelled to create more and more quangos.
We are to open a fourth television channel, so let us have five large new quangos at the public expense. We must give the unions even more control over industry—I am sure that some Labour Members will agree with that—so let us set up an industrial democracy commission to duplicate some of the functions of that other quango dedicated to union power, ACAS.
In the past four years the present Government have set up 42 major, national, powerful quangos, each of which has either multiplied within itself or has spawned a number of satellite quangos. The Price Commission, in two years, increased in size from seven members to 16. Last year the Central Arbitration Committee increased in size from 34 to 82 members, all paid. The Health and Safety Commission has produced 10 new little quangos. Earlier Socialist—

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Are little quangos called quangaroos?

Mr. Holland: My hon. Friend may like the little quangos because they are subordinate to the big quangos.
Earlier Socialist quangos included the 1969 Metrication Board, which was composed of a chairman and 12 members. It very quickly set up eight steering committees requiring eight more chairmen and another 104 part-time members. The 1968 British Tourist Authority and its four attendant national boards were followed by a whole new family of regional tourist boards. Incidentally, hon. Members will recall that the Metrication Board was set up without the knowledge or approval of Parliament, at the whim of the Minister of the day, who simply informed Parliament in a Written Answer to what was probably a "planted" Question when

it was a fait accompli. Parliament had no say at all in the setting up of the Metrication Board.
So the multiplication of bodies continues, and at such a pace that the explosion is totally out of control. No one Minister has overall responsibility for them. Official lists are out of date. Nobody even agrees how many quangos there are in total. Why is the "Directory of Paid Public Appointments made by Ministries" not published annually? Why is the list of members of public boards of a commercial character not yet published for 1978? Last year it was published in April.

Mr. Rooker: It is published only every three years. Did not the hon. Gentleman know that?

Mr. Holland: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said from a seated position. He may be interested to know that in answer to Questions I put down earlier this year we were promised publication of both lists this year, but they have not yet appeared.

Mr. Heffer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when some of us got into Government after the 1974 General Election we wanted to bring in a system whereby people could be appointed on the basis of selection committees, which is what happens with local authorities? The hon. Gentleman may know of a book called "The Great and the Good" When we went into the matter, we were told that selection had always been done in the present way and that nothing could be done about it.
The hon. Gentleman has a good point, but he is making a mistake in implying that a Labour Government are responsible for the system when we inherited something that had been with us for the past 50 years. It is about time the House put the matter right, but not on the basis that it is something for which the Labour Party is responsible. On the contrary, Labour Members in and out of Government have been trying to do something positive about it. It is the Opposition who have resisted change in the past.

Mr. Holland: I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, because it looks as though we might achieve all-party agreement in the future


to get something done, which I should welcome.
As for the hon. Gentleman's later remarks, the present Government are making matters considerably worse by accelerating the growth of quangos and abusing the way in which appointments are made. I am attacking the Government for that reason, not because they started the system. I accept that all Administrations in the past have pursued a policy of setting up official bodies. The time has come when we ought to get together in the House and do something about it.
Hon. Members are in the dark about such matters. Some Oral and Written Questions receive answers, but some answers refer us to the quango in question. There is no working definition of a body's day-to-day activities, nor are there any agreed limits to the responsibility that a Minister bears to the quangos that he makes.
Ministers answering parliamentary Questions about quango membership get their facts wrong and send letters, often weeks later, to correct them. For example, on 2nd May I was informed in a Written Answer that Mr. J. L. Jones CH, was a member of 13 quangos, which were listed. Twelve weeks and one day later I received a letter from the Secretary of State for Employment informing me that the information supplied in respect of three of those quagos was inaccurate and that Mr. Jones had now resigned from two others. I was glad to have the correction. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Employment has corrected the mistake made by his Department.
That is an example of how even senior members of a Government lose track of quango membership. They are losing control of quangos. It is clear from my researches over more than two and a half years that there are about 900 national and regional quangos ranging over every aspect of life, work and leisure. Quangos have been established to tell us what we should, can or must do in certain particulars in our day-to-day activities. Some even tell us how we should think, and some dictate our moral behaviour. In the event of any lapse in our prescribed behaviour, in certain circumstances there are some quangos with the power to prosecute us before other quangos.
As if the present were not bad enough, "Labour's Programme 76", which we are told is to be the basis of its manifesto—or, at least, of its programme for the next Labour Government, if we have one—promises us a national planning commission, an agricultural land commission, a housing finance agency, a national transport planning authority, a communications council, a public broadcasting commission, a national youth body, a central advisory committee on education, a co-operative development agency and a statutory energy forum. And the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) asked me why I was concerned about the present position.
The remedy lies, first, with the Ministers to stop and reverse the present growth trend by sharply reducing the overall number of quangos. Those that escape the pruning knife should be made properly accountable to Parliament. The hon. Member for Walton has already indicated that he would agree with that.
Most of all, however, urgent steps should be taken to correct what I regard as the present ministerial abuse of the appointments system. This does not go far from what the hon. Gentleman said. When members of official bodies are paid out of the public purse, there is a strong case, first, for requiring an increase of parliamentary control over the nominations, secondly, for limiting the number of such appointments that ran be held by a single individual, thirdly, for making Ministers answerable to Parliament on the question of attendance records and other details that arise out of that appointment, and, fourthly, for a clear accountability to Parliament through the Select Committee system.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I am wondering, if my hon Friend's recommendations were implemented and all this quango business were stopped, what would be done with Labour ex-councillors who had lost the confidence of the electorate and, therefore, their seats?

Mr. Heller: Watch it! The hon. Lady has the intellectuals on her side.

Mr. Holland: I, like the hon. Member for Walton, slightly mistrust intellectuals, but I had not recognised any intellectuals among my hon. Friends.
In answer to my hon. Friend, I do not regard it as any solution to remove people of one political party and replace them with people from another political party. I want to see the quangos peopled by those who have the qualifications to do the job and by people of merit who are suitably equipped, rather than by people chosen for their political persuasion, of one side or the other. So I do not advocate, as my hon. Friend suggested, taking off all the Socialists and putting on all the Conservatives.

Mrs. Knight: I did not say that.

Mr. Holland: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. I believe that people who are incompetent should be replaced by people who are competent.
I suggest, too, that for all full-time paid appointments advertisements should be used stating the qualifications required. A short list of applicants should then be submitted to the Minister for his selection. Certainly, in the case of the commercial and industrial boards involving full executive positions, the Minister's selection should be submitted for approval to a Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Nationalised industries. The time has surely come to call a halt to appointments made irrespective of merit or ability and simply to reward political service. There is another much-maligned but far cheaper way of rewarding voluntary and political service.
Let me emphasise again that I am not criticising people for accepting appointments on quangos. I am gravely concerned at the present massive spread of bureaucracy outside the control of the elected representatives of the people. A great constitutional change is taking place to concentrate power in the hands of the Executive and its nominees. It is time for that power to be restored to the elected representatives of the people. It is time that it was returned to this honourable House, and I believe that we should not rise for the Summer Recess until some of these problems have been resolved.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: I want to raise two matters before we pass the motion for the Summer Adjournment. Before I do so, however, I want to com-

ment on the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) about quangos. Before this word gained the fashionable currency that it now has, I thought it meant that somebody had a speech impediment and could not pronounce "tango". But "quango'" now has an accepted definition, although I have seen an argument in The Times that there is also an American definition.

Mr. Holland: rose—

Mr. McGuire: I know that a lot of my hon. Friends have been waiting for some time in order to speak, so I shall get on.
In the unlikely event of the Conservative Party being returned to power, whenever the General Election comes, I believe that it will find it not quite so easy to abolish these quangos or whatever they are called. My experience has always been as an unpaid member of a quango. Most Labour Members find that when starting off their trade union careers—becoming committee men and the like, and gradually becoming branch secretaries—they are invited, almost as a matter of course through the trades and labour council and through the trade union movement to submit names to serve on various committees connected with all kinds of Government Acts, down to the very lowest level.
For instance, people may be asked to serve on committees of one sort or another. They may be asked to serve on the local disablement committee or on the local hospital board. One could give a whole list of such committees. However, I merely emphasise the general principle. Members of such committees are selected by their peers, who may vote for Joe Bloggs or Bill Smith, or in some cases a miner is nominated by custom and practice. As a result one gives up a lot of one's time. I did not get paid for it, and I do not think that the majority of Labour committee members got paid for it.
As a result of Government Acts, these bodies are often at evelated levels. I do not know what salary or honorarium is given, although sometimes it is reported to be quite big. I suppose that if one serves on several of these committees one is not doing too badly. But I get the impression that what really hurts the Conservative Party is the fact that some of


our lads have their snouts in the gravy train, whereas at one time it was entirely the lads of the Conservatives. I am not defending quangos by that argument. All I am saying is that I believe the Tories will find it very difficult to abolish them.

Mr. Holland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McGuire: Just a moment. The hon. Gentleman has had a good say and I have hardly got a head of steam up. I believe that the Conservative Party will find it almost impossible to abolish these quangos per se. However, I believe that the Conservatives have a deeper grievance, which is that more of our lads now serve on these committees whereas previously the Conservatives had a greater share.
I remember talking to a former Member of this House who was once identified as our shop steward. He has now gone to another place, so there are no prizes for guessing his name. When he was making an inquiry, he discovered quangos going back for a couple of centuries. Eamonn Andrews once hosted a programme on which a person signed in and did a bit of mime. I know one person here who signed in and as a result got several thousand pounds a year. These things have been going on for a long time and have a very long history.

Mr. Holland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I only wanted to make the point that the whole essence of my drawing attention to this problem now is that I recognise that there is a strong vested interest throughout all parties in maintaining a system of patronage which is to the benefit both of those who give out the patronage and of those who receive it. I was delighted when I heard the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) suggest that something should be done about this. The more we can make this issue an all-party one, the better.

Mr. McGuire: I believe that this is an unsavoury business and I think that there should be an inquiry into it. I do not know what form such an inquiry should take. The hon. Gentleman follows a long line of hon. Members who have raised this matter. The late Maurice Edelman was one. He used to put down

a whole string of Questions in order to find out what patronage various Ministers had. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is doing a worthwhile job.
I am not opposed to discussing this matter. It is good to ventilate it. Far too much secrecy surrounds it. But I do not know what form we should decide upon in order to achieve a better system. However, the more light we throw upon it, the better. What I am saying is that, first, it is foolish to pretend that one can abolish these quangos by a change of Government. Secondly, I believe that within the ranks of the Tories there is a feeling of resentment that they no longer control these quangos and that we now have our share of them.

Mr. William Hamilton: How would my hon. Friend deal with a comparable situation—namely, the appointment by a Prime Minister, such as Harold Macmillan, who appointed 10 of his relations to his own Government, and some of them just on the right side of imbecility?

Mr. McGuire: I had better not follow my hon. Friend in that argument. I have said that I do not know what form the change would take. The only answer I can give my hon. Friend is that if one is going to do things like this, it should be done in style.
The two points I wish to raise are on a much lower level and relate to my constituency, although they have wider implications for the south-west Lancashire area. The first is that I now believe that this House needs to discuss the Government's industrial policy. A theme that I have raised several times already relates to the way in which Government policy, in terms of development areas, special development areas and assisted areas, is in some senses carried out almost capriciously. It is not carried out with the kind of forethought and planning which I would expect of a Labour Government.
I give one simple example. As I understand it, Government policy is designed to assist areas which are disadvantaged in that their traditional industries have disappeared. I regret that one of my hon. Friends who is listening to me now, though not on the Front Bench, is charged with the duty of administering this policy


but has so far not been very helpful to me. However, I hope that he will be converted, having heard what I have to say.
Broadly, it can be said that in areas which are disadvantaged, because their traditional industries have disappeared over a number of years or have suddenly collapsed, the Government have a policy of helping those regions, areas or districts to attract industry, the help being given on the basis that if such an area did not receive this help the industry would go elsewhere. In other words, this is an inducement to industrialists to come into a specific area in order to provide jobs. They receive assistance depending on the three grades. There is the intermediate area, which virtually covers the whole of the country bar the south-east, and perhaps a few isolated pockets. There is also development status, and then there is the higher grade of special development status.
I have already raised the question of the Wigan travel-to-work area, which at present has a 9 per cent. unemployment rate. I have suggested that Wigan should be given such help because its traditional industries have disappeared. It has a higher rate of unemployment than 14 other areas which at present enjoy the highest form of grant aid, namely, special development area status.
But the Government's answer has always been that one should not spread the jam too thinly. They say that there is only so much jam to go around, and although they recognise that there is a lot of merit in Wigan's case they maintain that this would spread the already thin lump of jam too thinly and, as a consequence, the taste would go out of it for everyone.
I believe that that is a false argument, because in a sense the Government do not provide a lump of money to be distributed equally. What they provide is an opportunity to a certain area to attract industry. If it does, certain benefits will go to that area. But other areas can attract industry without any inducement, because certain industries feel that whatever advantages the Government offer are outweighed by geographical and marketing reasons or whatever. Where regions are at a disadvantage, it is illogical to say that an area fulfils all the relevant criteria but, because the jam is not to be spread too thinly,

nothing can be done for it. Because of its unemployment rate, no jam will be taken away from anybody if the Government confer on Wigan special development area status.
I hope that when we return in October, as we surely shall, whether or not we have a General Election, one of the first priorities of the Government will be to examine this policy. I hope that they will investigate whether the "jam" argument has any relevance. The Government's duty is to ensure that areas are not put at a distadvantage compared with other areas suffering the same high unemployment or environmental problems.
The second point I wish to mention relates to the basic unfairness in our rating policy. Last week, together with my hon. Friends the Members for Newton (Mr. Evans) and St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), I attended a meeting in St. Helens town hall. It was obvious from that meeting that the pattern of rating which has emerged has had a bad effect in St. Helens. I should make clear that a part of my constituency comes within the St. Helens metropolitan district. It appears that following the last rate support grant scheme the older industrial areas lost out considerably. I believe that the scheme needs to be fundamentally rejigged. There is obviously something wrong when one examines the lists of authorities and finds the boroughs of Stockport, Bury, Rotherham, Wigan and St. Helens almost at the bottom of the list. There appears to be an imbalance which puts some industrial areas at a disadvantage. This applies particularly to the older industrial areas.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to stress to his ministerial colleagues that the rate support grant needs to be greatly rejigged Furthermore, I wish to emphasise my earlier point—namely, that the Government's industrial strategy needs to be examined, particularly in regard to whether an area is given development status or special development status. I believe that there is an excellent case for Wigan to be afforded special development status.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: There are many people outside this House who


would regard it as odd if the House were to adjourn without being given some statement, at the start of what the public are pleased to call our "holidays", about the way in which a certain situation may affect theirs. If it comes to our holidays, there may be many Labour Members who will find themselves working harder during this Summer Recess than they have worked for some time past. However, among the great British public there must be growing concern about the effects of the air traffic controllers' dispute in France on people's prospects of arriving safely at their destinations and enjoying a well-earned rest. I believe that we should put in a word for the great British public.
I very much hope that the responsible Minister will feel it his duty to come to the House, having spoken to the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, and assure us that he is content that the effects of this dispute on the safety of air travel, on the security of British aircraft and British air passengers, and on the general economy of the tourist industry are such that there is no need for him to take action—or, if he sees a need for action, to assure the House that he is taking it.
It is worrying to see what is happening at our airports. It is also worrying to read what is being reported in the press about the emergency and makeshift measures of air traffic control which are being put together in order to get aircraft round French air space to their destinations. If something serious should go wrong, there would justifiably be an outcry. Therefore I believe that it would be appropriate for Ministers to come to the House to give us the assurances which I seek.
My second point also concerns air traffic controllers and aviation. I refer to the serious effect that is beginning to be felt on the development of British North Sea oil interests because of the curtailment of operating hours at Sumburgh airport. I know that this may seem a rather remote subject, nor is it closely connected with holidays. It is also a subject in which I immediately declare that I have an interest; but I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that, despite my interest, it is not improper of me to raise the matter now. I believe that, because of what is happening in Samburgh, the national interest is becoming seriously involved.
Because of shortage of staff, the hours of operation at the airport are now restricted, from Mondays to Saturdays, to between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. and on Sundays to between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Operators using the airport were given an assurance some time back that the situation would be put right by the end of July or early August, by the recruitment or training of additional staff, by the appointment of a new airports manager, and by an increase in remuneration for the air traffic controllers at Sumburgh. If those steps are taken and taken now, it will still be six weeks or more, so I am told, before the airport can return to the full operating conditions which the airport management wants to achieve, and which the users and all those concerned with the exploitation of North Sea oil around the Shetlands also want to achieve.
Unhappily, although the matter was first referred to the Government six weeks ago, for a decision on a Sumburgh allowance for air traffic controllers, so far that decision has not been forthcoming. I understand that the matter has moved from the Department of Trade to the Department of Employment, and for all I know, it may have gone from there to the Department of Energy. What matters is that it now appears to have come to rest in a committee chaired by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection.

Mr. Lawrence: Is it a quango?

Mr. Onslow: No, it is not a quango. I can reassure my hon. Friend on that score and I am being serious, because this is a serious matter.
I enter a plea that the House should be told before we rise that that necessary decision will be made without further unnecessary delay or minuscule quibble over the decimal pointage of pay policy. It will cost this country enormous sums of money if we are forced to delay these North Sea operations and accept operating handicaps, well into the winter, when the hours of daylight get shorter and shorter and the weather gets worse and worse. We shall all pay for that in the end.
I hope that the Leader of the House will not just tell the House that it is all very difficult. I hope he will say that a decision is to be taken and that if it


means a breach in pay policy, that will have to happen. Let us get the North Sea oil going, and for once in a while let us not let the sacred cow of pay policy dictate every consideration about our future.
My third point is also connected with pay policy and with the unions. This matter was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party in an intervention at Prime Minister's Questions earlier today, although he got remarkably little change out of the Prime Minister on it—not that there is anything new about that. I refer, of course, to the subject of the ban on new telephone installations by the members of the Post Office Engineering Union. I am sure that the Leader of the House knows that this dispute has been grinding on for nearly nine months. It is true that until May this year the Post Office was maintaining a low profile on it, for reasons of its own. Local managers were loyally not revealing to prospective customers the full awfulness of the situation and Post Office management was doing its best to sort out the situation with the union.
In May I received a letter from the managing director of Post Office Telecommunications, which set out the history of the dispute briefly and concisely. It said:
The engineering technicians, on the instructions of their union, the Post Office Engineering Union, have been taking this action against our customers since November 1977 in an attempt to achieve a 35 hour net working week without loss of pay (at present they work a 40 hour net working week). We consider that claim to be unjustified and if it were conceded it would result in a reduction of the level of service we could offer to our customers and would increase our costs.
We have made repeated attempts to settle the dispute in a way that does not conflict with the Government's pay policy, and which will give our engineering technicians some shortening of their working week. We have also told the union that we would be willing to have the dispute referred to independent arbitration. The union has so far refused every offer we have made including arbitration.
When I received that letter, I wrote to the responsible Minister. His reply, dated 8th June, included this immortal phrase:
…highly sensitive industrial relations issues of this kind can usually be best settled by responsible negotiations between the employer and his employees.

In other words, the Minister was saying "We should not do anything unless we have to". But since they had to do something, the Minister concluded by saying that Lord McCarthy had been appointed to conduct a special review. That appointment was made in the first week of June. We are now in the first week of August and the situation has not improved in any way.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House must know that there is mounting evidence throughout the country of the social and economic effects of the union's action. I have tried to draw Ministers' attention to this. About a fortnight ago I wrote to the Secretary of State for Trade instancing some of the cases that were known to me. In due course I received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Industry.
At an earlier stage I had also tabled a parliamentary Question in an endeavour to stir things up. On 24th July I asked what representations the Secretary of State had received concerning the effect of the industrial action, and what estimate he had formed of its effect upon the import and export trade. The answer that I received was not exactly encouraging. It was to the effect that it is for the Post Office to estimate how many people are affected by this sort of industrial action. The Minister had received a number of letters drawing his attention to the fact that the dispute had affected certain groups. He could tell me only that he was aware that an early settlement of the dispute would be of benefit to all concerned. That was a fairly blinding glimpse of the obvious.
The letter that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Industry was not much better. It contained the following soothing passage:
Naturally we sympathise with people who are prevented from getting the use of a telephone and we understand the significance in circumstances such as you describe. However Lord McCarthy is conducting the special review and is fully aware of the urgency of the problem. We hope to have his report soon. You will no doubt agree, on reflection, that in the meantime it would he inappropriate to seek to exert influence on either party.
I do not agree. I believe that influence should be exerted on somebody even if it is only Lord McCarthy, who has had two months to deal with this "intractable" problem. If it is an intractable problem, at least he should now say so.
The problems are not confined to families that may have clubbed together to buy their parents a telephone because either father or mother is in failing health and may urgently need to call a doctor. Nor are they confined to families that are separated, where mother likes to telephone at the weekend to make sure all is well—though I know of one instance where the Post Office has lost at least £50 as a result of the mother's inability to use the telephone in that way.
The problems are not even confined to those experienced by the Continental Bank as reported in the press over the weekend, where the bank has been deemed by the local branch of the Post Office Engineering Union no longer to exist.
Significant examples have come to me concerning business men involved in the import and export trade. I instance the case of one of my constituents who is the managing director of one of Britain's major flour milling companies. My constituent needs to conduct a great deal of business outside normal office hours. He buys large quantities of grain for the United Kingdom market from the North American market. He cannot do that now as efficiently and smoothly as should be possible, and it is inevitable that the national interest is suffering as a result.
Companies that are selling to the Middle East and to other parts of Britain are finding that their efficiency is suffering. Those who used to conduct business from their own homes are being prevented from doing so because they cannot have telephones installed.
It is high time that somebody exerted some pressure. I hope that the Leader of the House will now be able to tell us, after diligent inquiry, when Lord McCarthy expects to be able to produce his report, and when the Government expect to be able to act on it.
It seems likely that this is the last time that we shall have this debate in this Parliament. Parliament will be none the worse for that. The prospect of the Summer Recess is welcome in some respects but in others I find it nauseating because we shall see a continually mounting campaign, as if it had not already begun, on the pal t of the Government's good news machine. It will use all the serried ranks of information officers on the public payroll. It will make any

campaign conducted by the Conservative Party appear modest in the extreme. Let there be no mistake about that.
There will be a positive crescendo of artificial statements or purported good news shovelled out on to the unsuspecting public throughout the summer, culminating, perhaps, in a grand charity football match at Wembley Stadium between the Prime Minister and all his family on one side and a selected team of quango All-Stars on the other. No doubt the match will also have full television coverage on all three channels.
I may be a bit pessimistic on that score, but when we look back on previous Parliaments it is clear that we have had bad ones and mad ones. This Parliament is the worst that we have ever had, and good riddance to it.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I shall not take up the time of the House for long. I shall comment briefly on some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Government's propaganda and PR machine being supported by taxpayers' money, the implication being that the Tory Party uses private money for such purposes. The main advertising contractor to the Manpower Services Commission—a quango, of course—is doling out hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money on a campaign to explain to the people the Government's policies to curb unemployment.
The main contractor, Saatchi & Saatchi Compton Ltd, is getting the benefit of State money, but it is now in the pockets of the Tory Party. Before the House Roes into recess I raise as a matter of urgency the conflict of interest that must occur when an advertising company takes money from the public purse, from the Manpower Services Commission, to work for the Government to explain their policies to our fellow citizens, and on the other hand takes part in the thoroughly disreputable, misleading, cheating and lying advertising campaign of the Tory Party. It is a campaign based on the Tories' twisted view of unemployment.
We should have an urgent debate and bring before the House the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to ascertain what he is doing on this score.


We should abolish, if we can, the Advertising Standards Authority Ltd., which is a private Quango and totally ill-equipped to deal with these matters. We should set up a State-funded proper Advertising Standards Authority. Surely there must be a massive conflict involving public interest, and the Tory Party is in it up to and over its neck.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is equally disturbing that in the queue shown in the posters that have been distributed far and wide throughout the country to appear on all the main poster sites it is Saatchi & Saatchi employees who are shown on them, some of them having been photographed at least five times? It seems that they are overemployed in trying to create a good image for the Tory Party.

Mr. Rooker: It is clear that the Tory Party will come unstuck by using that advertising firm, as it came unstuck by using a public relations exercise to beef up the image of some of their Front-Bench spokesmen. That did not work either.
I rise to oppose the motion for reasons that have caused me to oppose similar motions in the past. I am against the House of Commons having long recesses. I am prepared to say that from the Government Benches and, rue the day, from the Opposition Benches if ever I am on that side of the Chamber. I am raising an important matter concerning democracy.
We live in a complex society in which the Government are held, sometimes unfairly, to be responsible for everything that happens. It is wrong that we should go into long recesses. We should be in continuous session except, possibly, for a month's recess during August. We should not go into recess for three months. We should have only a month's recess so that Back Benchers are able to raise matters in the House affecting their constituents. At present we have to write to Ministers during the long Summer Recess and wait two months or three months for a reply. It is an issue that affects Opposition Back Benchers just as much as Government Back Benchers. It is of fundamental importance and lies with the manner in which we arrange our business
I hope that one of these days we shall make some changes, although I suspect that they will not take place while my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House remains in his present position. I think that he tends to like the way in which we arrange our business. I am not saying that I do not want him to be a member of the Government—far from it. It may be that I should like to see him in another job. I implore my right hon. Friend to give consideration to making the changes that I suggest. I hope that he will do so before we come to the Summer Recess next year before the General Election of October 1979.
I oppose today's motion because I want an urgent debate with the presence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The health clinic at Warren Farm in my constituency is to close. It is in a part of my constituency that is extremely badly served by community facilities for the elderly and the youngsters. It is to be closed and moved half a mile away. It is the building that is important. There are no community facilities in that part of my constituency for youth clubs, pensioners' meetings, or play groups, for example. We have a public asset that will soon be standing empty.
I understand that the area health authority has refused to implement the ideas that have been put forward that would enable us to have a community centre for the physically handicapped during the day and a youth centre for the evenings. There would be joint funding arrangements between the social services department and the area health authority. The money would come centrally from the Department of Health and Social Security and, therefore, the Minister would be responsible. Discussions have gone on for the last six months. I understand that the city education department has secured a part-time youth worker to be based at the centre.
The last thing that I and councillors who represent the Kingstanding ward want is this public facility to be bulldozed to the ground. This massive pre-war council estate was built without any idea of community in that not many community centres were built. The area is deprived. The chance of obtaining this building for use as a community facility must not be missed. I think that the


Secretary of State owes it to my constituents to explain why the regional health authority and the area health authority have refused the proposal put forward under the joint funding arrangements for the use of this building as I have described.
This is an important matter. Unlike some matters raised today, this really is urgent. In three months the building may have been bulldozed to the ground and I shall have lost the opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment or at Question Time. That is why I am raising it today.
I hope that in the short time that is left before 7 o'clock my right hon. Friend will have the wires tapped and working and will come up with an answer to the effect that no decision will be taken on this matter by the regional health authority or the Department of Health and Social Security until Parliament comes back in the autumn and the hon. Member for Perry Barr has been able to pursue the matter on behalf of his constituents.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I find it strange to speak in this debate. Earlier this year we were told that we would have two weeks for Easter. We were then told that we were to get only a week and that it was hoped that we should get two weeks in the spring. When the Spring Recess was announced, we got only a week and a day, because it was said that the Government hoped that the House would rise at the end of July. Now here we are in August.
Many hon. Members have raised different issues. I should like to raise only two. The first is to bring up again with the Leader of the House why we have not had a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. That report was printed on 13th March this year—almost five months ago—and still there is no sign of a debate.
As the Leader of the House knows, on successive Thursdays he has been asked when we are to have the chance to debate this important report. All he could blandly suggest was that the Opposition should give up a Supply Day to debate it. I hope that when he replies

he will give me one example when an Opposition Supply Day has had to be taken to debate a Select Committee report. I believe that Select Committee reports should always be debated in Government time.
According to The Observer of 30th July, we can expect a report later this week from the Select Committee on Procedure in which one of the recommendations will be that the Government have to respond to Select Committee Reports within a fixed time span and allot a specific day for their reports to be debated by the Commons. I hope that recommendation will be accepted. It will prevent Governments, such as the one with which we are now lumbered, from sheltering behind evasive answers.
Will the Leader of the House tell me why the Government have refused point blank to debate this report? I do not know why the Government want to sweep the whole question of immigration under the carpet. Perhaps their purpose is to sweep it under the carpet until after the General Election.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The Opposition have a number of Supply Days—29. If the Leader of the Opposition wished to devote one of those Supply Days to debate immigration, the House could have debated it. Other hon. Members were calling for a Supply Day to be allocated to that subject, but the Leader of the Opposition, or the Shadow Cabinet, refused to allocate a day to it.

Mr. Montgomery: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to make a speech, not an intervention. I can only assume that he is some kind of political Rip Van Winkle who has been asleep during the whole of the debate. If he had been listening, he would have heard me say that it was wrong that an Opposition should have to give a Supply Day to debate a Select Committee report.

Mr. Ioan Evans: On this subject.

Mr. Montgomery: The important point was to discuss this issue on the basis of the Select Committee report. The Select Committee consisted of Members of Parliament from both sides of the House. Therefore, the report should have been considered very seriously. Obviously it is not considered serious enough by the Government to be debated.
About a year or 18 months ago, when we had a discussion on this matter—again, on the Adjournment of the House—the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) made a speech in which he brought up the question of immigration and used the phrase "Enough is enough". I think that the vast majority of British people would agree with that phrase. The strange thing is that at that time there was no great leaping around on the Labour Benches. No one said a word. Labour Members did not say boo to a goose. There was not a cheep out of any of them.
Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, not in a prepared speech but in answer to a question in a television interview, stated that the British people must see an end in sight to immigration. Then we saw the hullabaloo that arose on the Labour Benches. The Leader of the House and his Cabinet colleagues—particularly the Home Secretary in a most hysterical way—launched a vicious attack on my right hon. Friend. Since that time the whole tenor of Labour Party propaganda on immigration and race relations has been to try to put across that the Conservative Party is a racist party.

Mr. William Hamilton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman should be very careful about what he says. I should like proof that the Conservative Party is racist. What does the hon. Gentleman find wrong in the policy that the Opposition are putting forward? Perhaps he believes that there should be no immigration control at all. Perhaps he believes in the open door policy. If that is his view, I hope that he will stand up and proclaim it so that people in his constituency will know exactly where he stands on this important issue.
We have had disgraceful examples of immigrants being told that the next Conservative Government will repatriate them. It is a disgraceful way for the Labour Party to campaign to get the immigrant votes which it hopes will save it from defeat at the election.
The people of this country are entitled to know where the political parties stand on this vexed question of immigration. It is a matter of great concern to millions of people. I hope that the message will

not be lost on the electors that this Government prefer to ignore the problem rather than face the difficulties.
The second issue is totally different. It concerns the importation of Christmas cards made in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I am quite staggered that a non-Christian country, such as Soviet Russia with its infamous record on persecution of Russian Jews and dissidents should consider going into the Christmas card business.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: My hon. Friend refererd to the Soviet Union as a non-Christian country. I remind him that there is a great Christian tradition in that country. Unfortunately, Christianity, like every other religion, is persecuted and repressed in that country.

Mr. Montgomery: I stand corrected. I agree with my hon. Friend. It is the regime in power which is persecuting and suppressing Christian beliefs. In view of the recent trial of dissidents, it is ironic that we should receive into this country Christmas cards printed in Soviet Russia.
The facts, as I understand them, are that an American computer firm contacted a card or stationery firm in this country regarding a possible trading deal. The idea was that Russia wanted American computers, that Russian Christmas cards would be dumped and sold in this country and that the proceeds from the sales would be used to pay the American firm for the computers. If this information is correct, it means that Russia will gets its computers, that the American computer firm will gets its money and that poor old Britain will get absolutely nothing.
It is even worse than that. I think that the Leader of the House and the Department of Trade must consider the effect that this avalanche of Russian Christmas cards will have on our own industry. There is some discrepancy about the number of Russian Christmas cards which will be floating around in this country at Christmas. Press reports say that they will number about 20 million. I have been told that the number will be 36 million. There will be 10 cards per pack and 72 packs in a carton. Those who defend this deal say that 20 million Christmas cards represent only 2 per cent. of the total market. But the total market includes not only Christmas cards but


birthday cards, anniversary cards and so on. I suppose that it also includes commiseration cards. I hope that there will be a great demand for them for Labour Members after the next election when the Government Front Bench are swept out of office. These 36 million Christmas cards will be a much higher proportion than 2 per cent. of the Christmas card market in this country.
I am told that the cleverness of the plan was that it was originally intended to have the words "Printed in Georgia" on these cards so that any unsuspecting person would believe that they had been printed in Georgia in the United States. I am pleased that the Department of Trade showed some gumption here and turned down that proposal. Each card must now bear the stamp "Printed in the USSR".
I am particularly concerned that apparently this episode is merely a trial run and the talk is that if all goes well, next year the number of Russian Christmas cards coming into this country will be doubled so that we shall have about 72 million of them.
I am interested to see that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) finds this so hilarious. I hope that he has no printers in his constituency who could find themselves putting stall out of work because there is no demand for British-made Christmas cards.
Some may argue that it is important for us to trade with other countries, but they must realise that this order is not a question of importing from Russia but the commissioning of work to be done in Russia that was formerly done in this country. It seems that the purpose of the deal is to safeguard the jobs of Americans in the greeting card industry in America at our expense. If the Russians are getting American computers, I cannot understand why the Christmas cards could not have been sent to the United States so that the Russians could receive their money from sales in America.
I hope that before the end of the debate, the Leader of the House will be able to discover from someone at the Department of Trade exactly what Britain is gaining from this deal.

Mr. Tom Litterick: Christmas cards.

Mr. Montgomery: The hon. Member for Selly Oak was so busy talking to a Minister on the Government Front Bench that he did not hear what I said. I hope that he has no stationery or printing firms in his constituency or that such firms in his constituency do not have to implement redundancies. If they did, he and the people concerned would not think that it is as funny as he seems to believe at the moment.
I have a fairly large Jewish population in my constituency and they have been trying for years to secure the release of Felix Aronovich so that he may be allowed to leave Russia to go to Israel. He is not a criminal and he has done nothing wrong, but the Russian Government refuse to allow him out of the country. His mother, his wife and a child aged two, whom he has never seen, are living in Israel, but the Russian Government refuse to allow this man to join his family.
There was a great deal of dissent from the Government Benches when I talked about immigration. I see no dissent there now. No one with any humanity could condone the attitude that the Russian Government persist in adopting in their treatment of Russian Jews. I cannot see how this treatment equates with the Russian signing of the Final Act of the Helsinki conference. Far from going into a deal from which we get nothing, we should be showing our disapproval of the inhuman conduct of the Russian Government.
I hope that before the House rises for the Summer Recess, the Leader of the House will be able to give me some information on the two important issues that I have raised.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I do not intend to detain the House for long. I hope that my constituents will continue to buy Christmas cards that are made and printed in the Isle of Wight. If the Russians' Christmas cards are as good as their motor cars, my constituents will know which cards to buy.
We have had pleas from two Labour Members about inner urban properties and demolition. My first plea is that the Leader of the House should arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement about the problems faced by people living in inner urban


areas, including Moncriell Street, Southwark, Cumberland Road, Portsmouth—there was a great march through Portsmouth last weekend—Ilford, Cambridge and other parts of the country, who face having their homes demolished after acquisition by local authorities.
This is an outdated procedure, particularly in Portsmouth, where a three-lane highway was supposed to go through the site concerned. That is no longer going ahead, but the local authority still intends to pull down the houses. The area, of course, is not in my constituency, but I have made my peace with the local Member. It is disastrous that we should continue with such a policy.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) made his plea about a local community centre and I am pleading on behalf of perfectly decent people who own their own properties and who are facing their loss through demolition. I see that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) is here. In Southwark, 15 houses are in jeopardy because of a proposal to build a car park for a Sainsbury supermarket on the site. I marched—for the first time in my life—with these people through the streets of London three weeks ago. The Secretary of State is their last resort and if he does not step in, their autumn will be a bleak one indeed.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) spoke about prisons, and I agree that the morale of prison officers is at a low ebb. In my constituency, where we have three prisons, there has been a dispute going on at Parkhurst prison for eight months. Fortunately, the prison officers at Albany and Camp Hill resolved in May to accept the formula for settling the dispute. The prison officers at Parkhurst have not accepted the formula, and this has caused considerable problems in the other two prisons. It is causing a fall in the income of civilian employees and is undoubtedly costing the taxpayer a great deal, because much of the work that is normally done within the prison confines now has to go to outside contractors. It is also causing problems for prison officers in other parts of the country because they are not taking their right allocation of prisoners and I am sure that this must lead to overcrowding.
I do not know the answer to the problem, but an attempt must be made to settle the dispute. It has undoubtedly gone sour. I have made this plea to the Home Secretary on a number of occasions and I urge again that someone should try to resolve the dispute at Parkhurst—and the sooner, the better.
I am sure that we are all sad that the Secretary of State for Social Services has been ill recently but I urge that his Minister of State should reconsider the decision not to allow the pharmacists' dispute to go to arbitration. The pharmacists are still suffering badly from the refusal of the Government to allow the terms of the new contract to go to arbitration. A local chemist has written to me to say that pharmacists hope that the superficial arguments recently uttered by the Minister will be retracted in favour of good common sense and that the well supported plea for their case on remuneration to go to arbitration will be allowed to proceed. I cannot see why that cannot be permitted when we allow arbitration in so many other areas.
I wish that we had heard the Government's attitude to the report of the Select Committee on the National Land Fund. There is an urgent need to stop the flood of our priceless heritage to all parts of the globe. This will go on during the recess. We have two leading auctioneering companies in this country. I have no doubt that they are experts at their job, but their representatives are touring this country encouraging people to bring items forward for auction. That is a fair process, but while there is the inability in this country to be able to purchase these items they are going out of this country in wagon loads.
Oak Welsh dressers, which I consider to be part of our heritage, were fetching £30 or £40 about 10 years and are now being sold for more than £2,000 to buyers in Holland, Germany and Australia. The way we are going on, there will be very little left in this country.

Mr. Jasper More: If it is too late to have a debate on this important subject, even though the Select Committee report was published several weeks ago, does the hon. Gentleman agree that before the recess we should have from the Government their comments on the report?

Mr. Ross: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The report includes some good recommendations and the Government must make more money available to our museums and art galleries. Important items conic up at auctions week after week, and it is disastrous that we cannot follow the recent German example of buying back some of our heirlooms. The situation must change.
I should have liked to see a statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the Government's attitude to the continual slaughter of whales. This is a subject which has pad the attention of the House. During the four years in which I have been a Member, there have been at least half a dozen motions on this subject. They have received a large number of signatures. Every time I have tried to get a debate on this subject in the House, the Leader of the House has said that there are other ways of raising the matter. I have tried to raise it on the Adjournment and have failed to do so.
Anyone who has watched the recent films on television must be concerned at the continued slaughter of whales—30,000 were slaughtered last year—and the way in which the Japanese just go on and on doing it. I think that if the Japanese were prepared to give it up, the Russians might follow. I do not deny the Eskimos their whales. However, we are ignoring this matter and we shall suddenly find that all of the whales have gone.
I am grateful for the fact that the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence says that no longer will whale oil be used to clean army boots. That decision may well have been influenced by his wife, who is a well-known supporter of the campaign. If that is so, I congratulate her.
However, the British Government should surely follow the lead of the United States and at least ban the import of whale products, because very soon we shall have to find alternatives, anyway.
When I put this question to the Japanese Foreign Secretary and asked what the Japanese would do about stopping the mass slaughter of whales, I did not get a very helpful response. Apparently they will do nothing until all the whales have gone. It is up to our Government to put

some pressure on the Japanese in this sphere, too. We might stop taking some of their cars if they will not stop killing these wonderful creatures.
Finally, I ask the Leader of the House whether he can obtain from the Secretary of State for Industry his blessing for something which has just occurred in my constituency, after a very long period of suspense. The Fairey Britten Norman Aircraft Company is about to be taken over by Pilatus, which is a subsidiary of the Oerlikon group in Switzerland. I think that it is very sad that this, our last remaining sizeable light aircraft industry, which has sold over 800 of the Islander aircraft world-wide, has unfortunately suffered two receiverships. Apart from that, it has been a very successful company in selling its aeroplanes. It is sad that money has not been found in this country to keep the firm afloat. It has been two banks, first Barclays and then the National Westminster, which have put the firm into receivership.
However, I very much welcome what has happened and the fact that the takeover will be by Pilatus, which is a successful private aircraft company based in Switzerland. I believe it to be in the best interests of my constituents, and I believe that the vast majority of the employees of the company welcome it. I hope, therefore, that there will be no obstacles put in the way by the Government for a smooth take-over.
There was a move at one time to suggest that the firm might have been taken over by a nationalised company. I am sure that the bid that Pilatus has made is substantially higher than that of Shorts. But I am quite certain—I have made this point to the Secretary of State on previous occasions—that so far as the future prosperity of the company is concerned, and the interests of my constituents, it would be much better if the Pilatus take-over proceeded smoothly. I should like to receive that assurance before the House rises for the recess.

5.53 p.m.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I have no doubt that if we were not proposing to adjourn, in the next few weeks we would be discussing at some length, and no doubt with some heat, the prospect of Common Market interference in our energy policy. I


simply want to express to my right hon. Friend the hope that the Government, in the absence of the House of Commons, will take all possible steps to resist such interference by the Common Market and will not allow the EEC to keep this matter nice and quiet until it thinks that a more favourable time has been arrived at. I am quite sure that my constituents share with me a very robust feeling that this is something that cannot be tolerated.
However, my main purpose in speaking on this motion is to bring to my right hon. Friend's notice the fact that before the House reassembles on 24th October we shall know that it will have proved impossible in many areas of the country, including the West Midlands I fear, to ensure that the agreement which was reached with the firemen way back in January is in fact implemented. I am deeply concerned about this matter. I believe that the situation is so serious that we should not adjourn until it is aired.
In January an agreement was arrived at with the firemen which involved the implementation of a 42-hour week in November. Nevertheless, the employers decided to take no steps towards recruiting, and it was not until June of this year that they even started trying to recruit additional labour.
But not only have the county councils been dilatory in this matter—in my view, they are actually trying to sabotage the fire cover arrangements that we have in Britain. By reducing fire cover they are trying to pay for the agreement that was reached to shorten firemen's hours.
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has had to draw to the notice of the county councils the fact that fire cover is a matter in which the Home Office is deeply and statutorily concerned. The county councils are also proposing to abrogate existing arrangements about the status of fire stations. For example, they are proposing to take unto themselves the right to decide that fire stations which are at present manned full time will go over to being part-time retained fire stations. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has had to draw county councils' attention to the fact that these matters are the subject of previous collective agreements which cannot be

simply unilaterally abrogated by the county councils.
However, this situation demonstrates the attitude of the county councils and their determination to escape from their responsibilities if that is at all possible.
I take the situation in the West Midlands as an example. It is a fair example, because I believe it is by no means the worst situation. In the West Midlands, from 1974 when firemen's hours were reduced to 48, we have been consistently and permanently undermanned. In 1974 the shortage amounted to 400 men—a very considerable number. Recruitment has taken place throughout 1977, yet at the end of the strike there were 1,861 men in post in the West Midlands—still substantially below the 1976 target figure—and after six months' further recruiting the figure now stands at only 1,865. That is a net increase of four firemen. This means that the strength of firemen in the West Midlands is 267 below the optimum figure of 2,132 that was agreed in 1976 as being necessary for the present 48-hour week, and 79 below the lesser target of 1,944 then fixed.
My right hon. Friend will see from these figures that it is clearly impossible to have a 42-hour week worked in the West Midlands in November without substantial risk to the fire cover, yet it is equally impossible for this agreement to be simply ignored. The firemen want and expect their 42-hour week, and are entitled to it.
I understand from the West Midlands fire brigade that the main reason for the lack of success in recruiting and the maintenance of strength is the large number of established firemen who are now leaving the service due to low morale in the brigade. This has been caused in no small part by the lack of good faith that has been shown by the local authority employers in their negotiations on the 42-hour week, and by the uncertainty created by the West Midlands county council, which is again, at this stage, doing an in-depth study of the standards of fire cover for the county, which will not be completed until mid-August.
Therefore, the authority is faced with the enoromus responsibility of recruiting people to carry out an agreement solemnly entered into for a level of hours of work which is taken for granted by the rest


of the population today. But instead of getting on with that job the West Midlands county council is conducting yet another study on manning levels and fire cover, thereby creating uncertainty and showing its evasive attitude to the problem of recruiting.
The Government's reputation is tied up in all this, and that is why I want my right hon. Friend to ask Ministers with departmental responsibilities in the matter to impress even more fiercely upon the county councils their duties in this respect. I have no doubt that if the agreement is not honoured by the employing authorities they will seek to pass responsibility for that off on to the Government. I have my criticisms of the Government for their original handling of the firemen's dispute, but I do not hold them responsible for what has now arisen. It is abominable that the county councils should play ducks and drakes with fire cover in the West Midlands and the rest of the country. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to ensure that everything possible is done to secure full implementation of the agreement in November.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I wish to raise a specific point that has come to my attention this afternoon. It is important to the extent that the House should consider it before rising for the recess. In replying to the debate the Lord President should assure the House about action that the Secretary of State for Scotland might take on the matter.
This matter relates to a decision by the Lord Advocate. It was disclosed in April 1977 that irregularities had arisen in the allocation of local authority houses under the control of the Glasgow district council. An immediate outcome of that disclosure to the public was that the then deputy housing convener, a Mrs. Cantley, was forced to resign. The administration was at that time under Labour control. It was alleged, among other things, that Mrs. Cantley had arranged a house for her son and that this arrangement had taken precedence over everyone else on the housing list in Glasgow. In addition to Mrs. Cantley being obliged to resign, the assistant director of housing in the authority resigned and his assistant was fired.
Clearly these irregularities were substantial. An internal investigation took place under police direction, and a report was prepared for the Crown office in Edinburgh. I learnt today, to my great surprise, that the Lord Advocate has advised the Glasgow district council that no criminal action is to be taken against anyone involved in what can only be described as a serious breach of public confidence in the district council's affairs.
It is impossible for anyone to imagine how the Lord Advocate reached this surprising decision. Presumably it was made entirely on legal—perhaps technical legal grounds. One can only hope that that was the case and that no political motives could be attached to it, bearing in mind that an election might be coming along—

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Disgraceful.

Mr. Fletcher: —and that any action of this kind might be an embarrassment to the Government.

Mr. John Lee: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to intervene, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) is casting a gross reflection on the Lord Advocate's integrity in his quasi-judicial functions. Whatever other general criticism he may make, it surely cannot be in order for the hon. Member to make such comments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I have heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) so far and I hope that he will not trespass on the subject of the Lord Advocate's functions. The hon. Member is on dangerous ground because neither he nor the House knows any of the reasons which have led to the decision.

Mr. Fletcher: I have already said that it is impossible to know on what basis the Lord Advocate made the decision—

Mrs. Dunwoody: Withdraw.

Mr. Fletcher: —and let me say for the benefit of those on the Labour Benches who are becoming excited that I wrote to the Lord Advocate as soon as I heard of his decision and told him that I intended to raise the matter here. Regardless of the reasons behind the


decision. it is obvious that this is an extremely urgent and important matter. The House should know that a forgery of the housing records is believed to have occurred at the time of these irregularities. Nevertheless, no prosecution is to be made.
I understand that this morning the district council's housing sub-committee, which comprises Conservative, Labour and nationalist Members, unanimously decided that in view of the Lord Advocate's decision the Secretary of State should be asked to set up immediately an independent inquiry into these affairs. Clearly it is most unsatisfactory for everyone concerned, regardless of his or her political label, for this matter suddenly to be drawn to a close with no one knowing precisely what the affair was all about. There must be some public examination, and I hope that the Lord President will press upon the Secretary of State for Scotland the need to arrange that immediately and to announce the setting up of an independent inquiry before the House rises.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also agree that there must be no suspicion of any kind of political or administrative cover-up. The House should not adjourn without a Government statement about an independent inquiry so that the people who are governed by the Glasgow district council may know that the housing affairs of that authority are cleansed of any kind of irregularity and that in future they will be managed in a way that commands the confidence of all concerned.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: I hope that before the House adjourns some consideration will be given to a question that affects the lives and interests of many Darlington citizens. It arises fom a planning application by William Morrison Supermarkets Ltd., to transform a derelict site in North Road, Darlington—the former railway workshops—into a supermarket and a bowling centre.
The application was carefully considered by the Darlington district council which agreed that planning consent should be granted. The matter also went to the Durham county council which also agreed that the development should he allowed to proceed. For some reason, however, the Department has called the planning

application in, and we cannot discover why.
This imaginative scheme will clear up a derelict site which is seen by anyone entering Darlington from the north. Further, it will provide an up-to-date and modern shopping amenity. There are few shopping amenities in the locality and I have had many letters from old-age pensioners who would welcome the development of the site as a supermarket.
At no cost to the local authority or to public funds, Morrison has agreed to complete a bowling centre with this development. We have a very vigorous and thriving bowling club in Darlington of over 500 members, with no facilities whatever for bowling. They have to travel to Teesside in order to enjoy a game of bowls. There is a potential of 2,000 members for the bowling club, following the construction of the bowling centre.
Another vital reason for allowing the development to take place is that the supermarket will employ 250 staff. In addition, the two most favoured builders who are likely to get the contract are Darlington firms, providing employment in a locality in which we have particular problems with unemployment.
Every consideration is on the side of the people who want to see the development go forward, yet when contracts were signed, and the developers were prepared to allow the builders on the site, the Department of the Environment stepped in and said that it was calling in the planning application. This caused consternation in the town. I have had scores of letters from old-age pensioners who were interested in the scheme, from shoppers, and from bowls enthusiasts who have done a lot of work in trying to get this facility. They want to know why the Department is calling in the scheme.
I believe that the Department should not allow a week to elapse before looking at the scheme and telling both Darlington and Durham local authorities that this development can go forward. I hope that the Department will not delay it for a public inquiry, because that might well take over six months to complete. We shall then have the winter period with us and building will not be able to take place during the winter months. In addition, there is every possibility that Morrison might have second thoughts


and pull out from the scheme if there is a long delay. Every six months' delay will add at least 5 per cent. to the building costs of the development.
I have been inundated with correspondence, and there have been deputations and petitions to the Department of the Environment from the enthusiasts who want the bowling club. The club will, incidentally, cater for all age groups, between 9 and 90, who play bowls, and will be a great social centre. I cannot however, obtain from the Minister the reason for calling in the application. There is no question of adjudication, because there are no interests between which to adjudicate. As far as I know, there is not an inhabitant of Darlington who would not welcome the scheme. Members of the local authority from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Labour Party are all behind the scheme.
I want to know when we are likely to get an answer which will allow the development to proceed. I hope that it will be possible for a decision to be made within the immediate future. The House will soon be adjourning until 24th October, and I shall not have any further opportunity of pressing the Government on this matter if the House adjourns before a decision is made. The decision should be taken in a matter of days rather than weeks or months. Even if the Department has to go through the formality of calling in the planning application, I cannot see why a decision should not be made in the course of a few days.
I therefore ask the Leader of the House to take action in this matter immediately, together with the Secretary of State for the Environment, in order to ensure that a decision is made at the earliest possible moment. I realise that in a debate of this sort many weighty matters are raised by hon. Members from each side of the Chamber, and that this may well seem to be a trivial matter in relation to national politics, but I can assure the House that it is a matter in which thousands of Darlington citizens are vitally interested. If the application is delayed, it will rebound to the discredit of the Secretary of State for the Environment in particular and the Labour Government in general.
I therefore ask that serious and urgent consideration should be given to this matter, and that before the House adjourns I should be in a position to tell my constituents that the development will be allowed to proceed.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Robert Taylor: I do not believe that the House should adjourn for the Summer Recess before the Secretary of State for Industry has explained to the House a new avenue of expenditure which has recently been embarked upon by the National Enterprise Board without discussion in this House.
On 27th June it was announced in the press that the National Enterprise Board was backing an entrepreneurial venture in the Middle East, and that it intended to open an office in Jeddah in conjunction with a private group of companies which is not yet established over there. The purpose of the venture is to promote a presence in the Middle East for the British building industry. In this context, I understand that the building industry includes professional consultants, contractors and builders' merchants.
No details were announced at that time, and none has been announced since, as to the division of shares in this new enterprise, but the NEB is to be joined by a group of companies which is a trade publishing house, and also by a prominent Saudi Arabian business man, together with a management consultancy and the representative of a trust fund.
If we can go by previous form, which we have examined in the Public Accounts Committee, the private shareholders are likely to have in excess of 50 per cent. of the ordinary equity, and the NEB will have the balance, plus probably 100 per cent. of the non-voting debenture loan and preference stock.
At this point I think it right that I should declare my interest. For 20 years I have been in the builders' merchants field, and for the last 12 years of that period I have been actively engaged in exporting. In addition, although I do not today claim to speak on behalf of its members, as we have not yet discussed the matter, I am currently chairman of the Building Materials Export Group, which has Government recognition and Government support.
Following the announcement of 27th June, I attacked the proposals outside the House, and a substantial report of what I had to say appeared in the business section of The Times. It brought forth a sarcastic response from the spokesman on behalf of the sponsors. Conversely, however, the director of the Export Group for the Construction Industries backed up my view, and he is reported in the New Civil Engineer, a very respected trade magazine, as saying:
I find it strange the NEB should be involved. We ourselves would not wish the NEB to be involved in any overseas construction work. I just don't believe the NEB could help in a matter like this.
In addition, the assistant director of the British Consultants Bureau, representing all the professional firms working over there, said that he thought it was likely that Middle East Building Services, the new company, could be duplicating the work of the British Consultants Bureau.
The extraordinary situation to which hope the Leader of the House—and, through him, the Minister—will direct his attention is this. The Government, in order to help the export drive for the construction industry throughout the world, have appointed three focal points, as they term them, or three organisations, to take part in that export drive and, indeed, to spearhead it on behalf of the Government.
The three focal points designated by the Government are the Export Group for the Construction Industries, the British Consultants Bureau and the Building Materials Export Group. The three focal points appointed by the Government to spearhead the export effort of the construction industry are the three which find this new proposal alarming. As far as I am aware, the NEB did not bother to consult any of these bodies which were appointed by the Government. Indeed, as recently as 22nd June I was at a meeting of the Joint Consultative Council of the Construction Industry, under the chairmanship of the Minister of State, and he was unaware of this proposal.
It is relevant to this new venture to remind the House that, in the Eighth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts in the 1976–77 Session, paragraph 41 reads:

We recommend that the NEB, in addition to giving the Secretary of State reasonable notice of smaller investment proposals involving controversial policy issues, should also have regard to the need, evidenced in the case of Thwaites and Reed Ltd., for adequate consultation with the trade.
That recommendation, accepted by this House, has been totally ignored in respect of this new venture.
At the moment, British firms in the Middle East are finding intense competition from France, Germany, the United States, Korea and Japan. It is a dismal prospect that they will now face competition from British companies which have not yet made the effort to go out there but which will arrive subsidised by the taxpayer, through the NEB.
In the prospectus sent out by the NEB to encourage firms to join it in the venture, recipients are told that the cost is estimated at between £7,000 and £15,000. In addition, the descriptive publicity entices companies to join by suggesting that 33i per cent. of this expenditure can be reclaimed from the British Overseas Trade Board under the market entry guarantee scheme.
I want to warn the Government in all seriousness, from 20 years' experience in the trade and a great involvement in exporting, that if they, through the NEB, intend to entice companies to enter the tough Middle East market at little or no cost, companies which take up that offer are unlikely to have the management drive and expertise which will enhance the British reputation for delivery and service. The failings of these companies, coming in on a shoestring, can do untold harm to the efficient British companies competing in that area. I ask the Leader of the House to convey that message to the Secretary of State for Industry in the hope that the NEB can be prevailed upon to change its mind.

6.22 p.m.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I should not like the House to adjourn until I have had at least a few seconds to raise the question of defamation, particularly of the dead. I had hoped that we could have had a full debate on this subject.
Although the laws of libel are meant to protect the individual and it is open to anyone to take his case to the courts—itself a fairly time-consuming and expensive business—no such protection exists


for those libelled after their deaths. In a recent case, indeed, it seemed necessary for the people concerned to wait until everyone connected with the case was dead; 21 years were allowed to pass and then again the whole business was dragged into the open and people were allowed to say whatever they liked, with no question of being attacked in the courts.
It may be true that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me." However, many people in public life have had reason to learn that it is not necessarily so. If anyone believes that I am referring only to politicians, he should think again. When we changed the laws on theatre censorship many people found themselves open to attack. In a recent article, it was said that had those laws not been changed, plays like the one which accused Winston Churchill of conspiring to murder a former general of the Allies during the war would not have been allowed on the stage.
In a recent letter to The Times, Lady Clarissa Eden felt moved to point out that in an instance in which she had taken part and which was now being discussed after the death of her husband, remarks were said to have been made which she had never heard. So let it not be believed that only politicians are affected. People in the Armed Forces and those who have been involved in public accidents and lost their lives are also affected. They have families who are bitterly hurt and deeply upset by the fact that, after the death of the person libelled, there is no action that the family can take to defend his reputation.
One of the arguments used by those who appear to have a vested interest in going for easy circulation for the popular papers is that any attempt to extend the law of libel beyond someone's death would cut off the right of the genuine historian to comment in a way that would contribute to the sum of human knowledge. That is a specious argument. A true historian works from facts, does not seek unnecessarily to bring people's reputations into disrepute for no good reason. It is better in most cases if he writes at a proper distance from the events that he describes. Those are not the people who would be in difficulty. The

people who would be in difficulty are those who seek to leap into print the moment anyone is dead in order to attack his reputation—frequently people who themselves were involved in many of the incidents of which they are talking.
We should seriously consider the state of the law of defamation. This is one of the few countries which do not have this kind of protection. If one wants to defame the dead in France, one must be careful, because there are means for the immediate family to take action. In West Germany, anyone who disparages the memory of a deceased person will be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine. Prosecution may be started only on petition of the parents, the children, the spouse, the brother or the sister of the deceased person. In Australia, a draft defamation law sought to increase penalties of this kind. Therefore, in some ways, we are not giving our citizens the protections offered by other countries to theirs.
It is widely held that politicians or men in public life have neither friends, family nor blood in their veins. Those of us who enter public life are said to be open to any criticism. As the fourth generation of a family involved in politics I accept that wholly, provided that criticism is informed, honestly meant and aimed at attacking politics. But I have suffered since I was a child from the defamation that arises often from motives of pure malice. I do not believe that this House is seeking to protect decency in public life if it allows that situation to continue unchallenged.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: The House will be pleased that the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) was able to make her speech, although on a different motion from the one she originally expected.
I shall be brief, because this is essentially a Back Bench occasion, and there are many more Back Bench debates to come. The House will want to know what the Leader of the House has to say in reply to the points made. I acknowledge that he does his best on these occasions to give the best replies he can.
I want to deal with only three or four of the matters raised. The first was mentioned by my hon. Friend the


Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow)—the consequences of the industrial dispute in civil aviation, which could be serious at our airports, where thousands of people are waiting to go overseas. Many thousands of British people are waiting to go on holiday, but also many United States citizens are wishing to go back to the United States.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) raised an important matter when he spoke about prison policy and the danger of breakdown, although not in any emotive sense. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) referred to circumstances at Parkhurst. I have no doubt that what is happening in our prisons concerns justice and is a matter of widespread concern in this House. However, a Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee is investigating prisons at present, so I have no doubt that in due course there will be a debate. Nevertheless, there is public concern, and I think that some reassurance from the Leader of the House would be helpful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) spoke about quangos. Judging from the reception that his speech received, it is a very sensitive topic on the Labour Benches. Of course, the system is not new; it has been in existence for quite a long time. However, my hon. Friend's speech concerned the way in which it has been expanded and extended in recent years so as almost to alter the nature of quangos themselves. What concerns hon. Members is the scale of what is happening now, with thousands of people being appointed in this way. The total cost of them is not possible to guess in terms of figures, but it is happening on a very widespread scale. What is more, the system is unscrutinised by this House and therefore there is a sense of irresponsibility about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton made a number of constructive suggestions which appeared to find a certain amount of favour, at least as an immediate reaction, on both sides of the House. It appeared that hon. Members on both sides of the House wanted to be involved in these appointments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton went on to talk about the possibility of Select Committees being involved in some way. At any rate, I am sure that it is a matter of great importance, because

we do not want appointments to be made by the Government on such a widespread scale without any reference to this House. I am certain that that is a matter about which we shall hear a great deal more.
The matter of European business was raised in the first speech in the debate by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and supported by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden). There is no doubt again about the dissatisfaction on both sides of the House with our present arrangements and, to be fair to the Lord President, I am sure that he would add his name to that point of view. We presume that he has been looking for ways to try to ameliorate the position in the House. Unfortunately, what was taken by the House to be an undertaking on his part has not been fulfilled, and naturally the House wishes to know what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about it.
It is significant that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire should have raised this topic because he is also a member of the Select Committee on Procedure which is due to report later this week. It must be presumed from that fact alone that that Select Committee has not spent much of its time in looking at this aspect of our procedure, and when he gave that undertaking, the Leader of the House in no way sought to hide behind a possible future report of the Select Committee on Procedure. We should like to know what proposals the right hon. Gentleman intends to make.
The right hon. Member for Blackburn spoke about an attempt at an all-party agreement. On a matter of this kind, I am bound to say that all parties should be involved in trying to find between them the most satisfactory way of dealing with the matter. Certainly I subscribe to that view.
We do not know what the future holds. It may be that this will be the Lord President's swan song in his present capacity at debates of this sort. I dare say that he will say in his usual optimistic way that he will be here for years to come. However, even the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) thought that it might not be a


bad idea if the right hon. Gentleman moved on from his present post. But all that is for the future, and it is not for me to interfere in the internal affairs of the present Labour Government.
There is something slightly academic about a debate suggesting that we should rise on Thursday until Tuesday 24th October. I think that that is a decision which must be taken by the incoming Government. It will be for them to decide when the next Parliament shall meet. Of course, the present Government are entitled to go on beyond 24th October if they wish, but I think that they would be ill advised to do so.
I think that we should be adjourning from this House in order to ask the people for their verdict. The Government very largely have run out of ideas. They are getting into a good deal of difficulty, and I think that the evidence for that has come out in this debate because a variety of matters have been raised about which hon. Members in all parts of the House are dissatisfied. If the debate had lasted another three hours, I have no doubt that the number of issues raised in this way would have been multiplied two or three times. That seems to be the evidence of the need to ask the people what they want.
On that basis, I shall not oppose the motion. I think that we should adjourn, and that we ought to be going out into the real world and asking the people what they want, and then letting the incoming Government decide on what precise day the next Parliament should meet.

6.35 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I think that it would be convenient for the House—certainly it would be convenient for me; I cannot say that I put forward this view in an entirely altruistic mood—if we could conclude this debate at seven o'clock or shortly before. There is some very important private business to be transacted. There is then the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, in the debate on which many hon. Members have important matters to raise. If we could reach that conclusion, I think that it would be of benefit to all concerned.
I shall devote most of the later part of my speech to the major matters raised in this debate, by which I mean the subject raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and the question of so-called quangos. However, before coming to those, I propose to deal as swifty as I can with the many other matters which have been mentioned, although in doing so I do not seek to minimise their importance in any way.
Perhaps I may deal slightly out of sequence with one or two of the industrial disputes to which reference has been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) spoke about the hold-up and deadlock in the firemen's dispute. I know that this is causing a good deal of concern in many parts of the country, and not only in the West Midlands where my hon. Friend has special knowledge of the subject.
Negotiations in the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades on the employers' proposals for the introduction of a 42-hour week in the fire service broke down on 14th June. Since then, there have been talks between both sides of the NJC and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to find a way of bringing about a resumption of the negotiations. We understand that both sides have now agreed to a proposal by ACAS that a third party should be appointed to submit without commitment a report for clarification recording the position reached in the NJC in relation to the introduction of the 42-hour week in the tire service. Both sides have also agreed that the third party should be Professor Wood, chairman of the Central Arbitration Committee.
My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Employment have had meetings with the Fire Brigades Union on the subject in recent days. The Government's commitment to the introduction of the 42-hour week is not in doubt. The Home Secretary made this clear to the Fire Brigades Union and to the employers in the meetings which he had with them. In the Adjournment debate on 15th May and in answer to a Question on 8th June, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department told the House that the Government remained committed


to their desire to see put into effect the agreement which ended the fire service dispute in January. That is the present position.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) referred to two disputes. One was the Post Office engineering dispute. Other hon. Members indicated to me that they, too, wished to refer to it, even though they were not able to take part in the debate.
When it became apparent in June that there was deadlock between the Post Office and the POEU, the Secretary of State for Industry appointed Lord McCarthy to look into the dispute and to try to find a solution That is not an arbitration, but an attempt to seek a solution by discussions. We are awaiting the report, which I hope will come very soon. I very much hope that it can lead to a solution to the dispute. We are approaching the matter with a proper sense of urgency and are aware of the great inconvenience that is caused.

Mr. Timothy Raison: The Department of Industry told me today that the report was due to arrive tomorrow. That being so, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State to make a statement about it if at all possible before the House rises?

Mr. Foot: I cannot guarantee a statement, but there is a case for considering it. As I have said, I believe that the report will be available very soon. I do not give an absolute commitment, but I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I know that he was one of those hon. Members who was seeking to intervene in the debate.
The hon. Member for Woking and the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) also asked for a statement on the latest position in the air traffic controllers' dispute on the Continent which is causing such trouble in this country. I am not sure that it would be helpful to have a statement on that subject as well before we depart on Thursday, but I shall see what are the possibilities.
I am grateful for the appreciative remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) about the recent announcements relating to safety at sea. The report on the safety of merchant seamen at work

and the code of practice to be published later this month mark a notable step forward in reducing the risk which seafarers face in going about their work. I am sure that at the top of the list of measures that we shall wish to introduce next Session will be the Merchant Shipping Bill, to which my hon. Friend has contributed so much. I should also like to express gratitude for my hon. Friend's assistance in producing the safety regulations that are now being made statutory.
My hon. Friend referred also to the question of prisons and mentioned that he is to see my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary very soon. I understand that the meeting will be as early as tomorrow. In the circumstances, the best thing would be for my hon. Friend to take up the points that he raised and press them afresh when he meets my right hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pad dington (Mr. Latham) urged that there should be a public judicial inquiry into what occurred in the Brick Lane area. He gave the reasons that had been put to him by many of his constituents and others in London on the subject. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will take into account the representations that my hon. Friend and others have made. I have nothing fresh to add.
A number of important questions were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire). In particular, he asked for a fresh review of development area policy and the allocation of development areas. I am sure that there will be discussions on that subject over the coming weeks and months, as there are continuously, but I do not believe that I can make any further statement before the House departs. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also have discussions with the Ministers concerned about the rate support grant when we return in the autumn.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asked some particular questions about his constituency. I hope that he will excuse me if I do not go into the details of those matters. I am sure that he will press them with my right hon. and hon. Friends. There are still two parliamentary days left, and I understand that my


hon. Friend will be quite active in those last two days. I have already had indications to that effect.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) raised afresh the question why we had not had a debate on immigration. I have nothing to add to what I have already said on the subject. The Government have made their view absolutely clear. When the Select Committee made its report my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement which was very well received, certainly on the Labour Benches, as one which relieved the anxieties of many coloured people throughout the country after what had been said in the previous three or four weeks. My right hon. Friend also indicated the Government's attitude to the Select Committee's recommendations.
There is no doubt that the Government's views on the matter are being made quite clear to the country. If the Opposition had wished to have a debate on the subject, they could have chosen to do so. They could have challenged the Government's views, but they did not seek to. In that sense, the responsibility must rest on their shoulders, not on the Government's. The Government have nothing to hide.
Four or five subjects were raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). One related to the prison service, to which I have already referred. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I reply by letter on his other subjects. If I tried to reply to all of them now I could hardly fulfil my obligation to some of the hon. Members to whom I referred earlier.
Whatever I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about—and I did not disagree with very much that he said—I entirely agree with what he said about the whales. Appalling events are taking place. I agree that we in this country should do everything in our power to ensure that the world looks on these matters in a different way. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the question. I am sure that many people throughout the country believe that this country's influence should be exerted to the limit in the matter, that we should exercise some imagination and recognise what is

required from civilised communities in dealing with such questions.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) will excuse me if I do not give him a particular answer.
I make no apology for not referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher). The less said about it, the better. The hon. Gentleman chose to use his speech to make an attack upon my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. If he intended to make such an attack, he should have given my right hon. and learned Friend notice and should have raised the matter in a different way. His speech was not the normal way in which such matters are raised in the House.
I turn to the two principal matters raised in the debate. They are extremely important, and I do not seek to minimise their importance in any way. I asked the House last week to relieve me from the undertaking I had given in the debate last November because I was fully aware of what the undertaking was. I had said that I believed that we must bring the matter in question back to the House for debate and decision. Because I was not proposing that course, I asked at the Dispatch Box that the House should release me from the undertaking. I do not give undertakings lightly, and as I was unable to fulfil that undertaking, I believed that I should ask the House to proceed in that way.
I may be asked "Why did that happen?" The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it had any relation to the report of the Procedure Committee. He was correct in saying that in the debate in November I made no reference to the Committee. It is true that we had hoped that the Committee's report would come earlier. That might have influenced the way in which we would proceed. I am not taking shelter behind that. Even so, we have sought to see whether we could bring the matter forward for debate and decision in the House.
It is a fact that we did for a period—and this accounts for part of the delay—hope that there would be a report from the Procedure Committee appearing some weeks earlier. We thought that the Committee would be making some recommendations on the subject. However, it is


also the case, as the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, said in a perfectly fair comment on the matter, that in the debate I gave an undertaking that I would consult the Scrutiny Committee before bringing any such matter before the House. I did have the kind of consultations with the right hon. Gentleman which he has described. I am not blaming him or the Scrutiny Committee for replying to me "We would like further time to discuss the matter in the light of what has gone before." That is a perfectly reasonable attitude.
If, in these circumstances, we had sought to bring forward a motion in which was to be enshrined the practice of the House I do not believe that at the end of the Session, we would have established that rule in circumstances which would have been satisfactory. It is not the case, as the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting, that there is no controversy left in the matter or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) suggests, that there would not be any controversy raised. There are points of controversy. There is the point, for example, of the nature of the loophole, as it has sometimes been described. This concerns making commitments about having debates on matters recommended by the Scrutiny Committee and reaching decisions to make them absolute. There are some who advocate that. That is one point of controversy.
There is another point of controversy as to whether this matter should be dealt with at all by resolution. Some think that it should be done in that way while others disagree. There are considerable issues involved in that, too. These are controversial matters and we have not yet found what we think is the satisfactory solution.

Sir David Renton: Bearing in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I ask him to tell us why it was that nothing was submitted to the Scrutiny Committee until so very recently, just in time for it to consider the matter at its last meeting on Wednesday last?

Mr. Foot: I have already given some indication of the reasons. I do not want to repeat everything that I have said. Part of the reason was that we thought that there could be some approach to this matter through the recommendations that

might come from the Procedure Committee, or at any rate we might take into account what the Procedure Committee might recommend. Part of the reason arose from discussions we had among ourselves as to what might be the best way of approaching the matter.
What I do say is that we shall return to this matter afresh. Of course it is not settled. There must be a fresh approach to it. I have a long record on this subject, going back much beyond November 1977. My record goes back to the debate in 1972, which I do not think the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire recalled accurately, and which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. If we had been able to carry the motion in that debate many of these matters might have been settled long ago. This argument has to be taken into account when we approach the subject.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Whatever may have happened in the past, do I understand from my right hon. Friend now that he is anxious to reach some sort of agreed resolution covering this matter and is willing to have discussions about it, whether on an all-party basis or in Rome other manner?

Mr. Foot: When we return we must have consultations and discussions. I certainly think that we must seek an approach to this matter which carries out in some form or other the undertaking that I put in the statement to the House in August 1976. I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, do not think that that undertaking goes far enough. Other hon. Members think that it goes too far, while other; believe that it is satisfactory as it stands. I want to secure a resolution that can guarantee—not unanimous support because I do not suppose that that is ever likely on this subject—but at least fairly wide support. That is necessary to make the resolution effective.

Sir John Eden: Since the right hon. Gentleman has referred to consultations with the Scrutiny Committee, I must make clear that the exchanges that he had with me do not in any way constitute consultations with the Scrutiny Committee. At no time did the Scrutiny


Committee have any proposition before it.

Mr. Foot: There is no dispute or misunderstanding about this. I believe that the Scrutiny Committee took the view that in any case we could not reach a simple, easy, solution in the time available. I do not blame it. The Committee has had considerable experience in these matters and that has to be taken into account in reaching a solution. I fully understand the strength of feeling on the subject. We have to secure methods by which this House may exert its authority on these matters. We have not yet found the way in which to proceed. We must continue with the search.
Once again, I apologise to the House in that I have not been able to carry into effect the undertaking that I gave in November. I do not wish to qualify or mitigate the apology, to dodge the issue or blur the words. I want everyone to understand what we are seeking to do and where we have proceeded.
There was one other general subject raised in these debates, namely, the alleged quangos—the so-called quango explosion. There is a great deal to be said for examining the ways in which people are appointed to jobs and posts. I am all in favour of trying to make those appointed bodies democratic and democratically responsible. That is one of the reasons why I have striven so hard in this Session to get the devolution measure through the House of Commons. This will be interfering in many respects with the work of the quangos. Many appointments are made in a number of important areas, some of them in the most important of all. The whole system of appointment in the Health Service has to be altered as a result of devolution.
I am glad that there has been this conversion on this aspect on the part of Opposition Members. It is a great boon to me, at the end of this hard Session, that we have had almost unanimous support from the Opposition for our devolution proposals. I even suspect that I might get some support from some of my hon. Friends, too. I would be happy to end on that note of unanimity. Not one further word would I wish to say. I hope that in the course of examining

these quangos and making them genuinely more democratic we shall not have a smear attack upon such institutions as the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service such as we have had in this debate and over the past few days.
That service does not provide jobs for the boys. It is one of the best services that has been established in this country. It has saved us hundreds of millions of pounds and is pointing the way to much better industrial relations. It was conceived on the highest grounds of principle, and I say that because I appointed that body. On that happy note I hope that the House will be prepared to depart for the Recess.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Thursday do adjourn till Tuesday 24th October.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL)

Ordered,
That notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of Bills of aids and supplies, more than one stage of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

LIBEL

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the protection of the law of libel fifty years beyond the death of the person libelled, but to limit the right to take action to the family of the person libelled.—[Mrs. Dunwoody.]

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.

LIBEL

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody accordingly presented a Bill to extend the protection of the law of libel fifty years beyond the death of the person libelled, but to limit the right to take action to the family of the person libelled; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 193.]

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (SUSPENSION)

Order read for adjourned debate on Question [26th July],
That so much of the Lords Message [24th July] as relates to the Cheshire County Council Bill [Lords], the County of Merseyside Bill [Lords], the West Midlands County Council Bill [Lords], and the West Yorkshire Bill [Lords] be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Question again proposed.

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

7.0 p.m.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Oscar Murton): I beg to move,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.
In moving the motion, I should explain to the House that its purpose is confined to enabling the promoters of the four named Bills to suspend proceedings on them so that they can resume proceedings in the next parliamentary Session from the stage which the Bills have now reached. It is customary towards the end of a parliamentary Session for such facilities to be given to promoters of Private Bills.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I think that it would be proper and convenient for the House if I were now to state that it will be appropriate during the debate on the motion to discuss the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). These are:

No. 1, at end add
'except in so far as it relates to the Cheshire County Council Bill [Lords]'.

No. 2, at end add
'except in so far as it relates to the County of Merseyside Bill [Lords]'.

No. 3, at end add
'except in so far as it relates to the West Midlands County Council Bill [Lords]'.

No. 4, at end add
'except in so far as it relates to the West Yorkshire Bill [Lords]'.

As the motion relates to the procedure of the House, it will be possible at the end of the debate, before the main Question is put, for the hon. Member formally to move all or any of his amend-

ments even if he has already spoken in the debate.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I wish to raise two points of order before we start Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that hon. Members know exactly where they stand in this debate. I accept that we are debating a carry-over motion, and not the Bill itself.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has said that, it is customary at this time of the Session to give promotors of Bills permission to carry over a Bill. This is the fourth year of this Parliament and I should like you to confirm that if the motion is passed and Parliament is dissolved in the autumn it will be necessary in the first Session of the next Parliament to bring forward a revival motion, retrospectively as it were, to comply with what we are doing tonight.
If you can confirm that, clearly we are wasting three valuable hours of parliamentary time debating this motion, and it ought not to have been brought forward because it could be brought forward after the dissolution of Parliament. The argument would have had no validity last year or the year before, but it is common knowledge that this is the fourth Session of this Parliament.
I have another point of order to raise. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may wish to take them together, but I should be happy to sit down now and wait until you received advice on the first one if you so wish. My second point of order relates to the lack of proper papers to enable us to conduct this debate. I have said that we are debating only the carry-over motion, but I think that hon. Members ought to be in a position to know exactly how far the Lords have gone and what they have done to these four Bills. It is not possible for any hon. Member to go to the Vote Office and get a copy of these Bills as they stand following the debates in the other place.
We hear constant complaints in this House about decisions coming to this House from the other place and hon. Members being unable to concur with motions put forward by the Government and others when there is a lack of proper paperwork and we do not know what we are doing. I submit that this brings Parliament into disrepute. If you cannot


confirm that the proper papers are available, you ought to suspend this debate until tomorrow.

The Chairman of Ways and Means: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I might answer the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). The answer to his first point is that it makes no difference to the suspension order whether this Parliament goes on or not. The measure will be carried over in just the same way.
On the question of the supply of papers, I should perhaps point out for the benefit of the House that it would be virtually impossible to produce a transcript of what took place in the other House. There is a copy in the Private Bill Office and also, as I understand it, at the Table, but it would not be possible to have copies printed for the general use of hon. Members, because there were about 44 sittings. If certain extracts had been taken for the benefit of the hon. Member for Perry Barr, that would, in my view, have been unfair to others who might have had an interest in other clauses in the Bill.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have tabled the amendments not because I wish to see the exclusion of any of these four Bills from the carry-over motion, but simply because that is the only way available to an hon. Member to give the House any choice at all because according to the motion it is either four or none. The amendments would give hon. Members a chance of saying that they have objections to matters relating to their areas but not to others. However, I hope that the motion will be carried.
I also ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to confirm that there is not the possibility of a three-hour debate. I am hoping to get it on the nod, and will be surprised and delighted if we do, but there is a business suspension motion and this could be a long an all-night sitting as the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill—God forbid.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for

Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). The details of the amendments made in the other place have not been made available to hon. Members, and therefore the full implications of these Bills as amended are not known to us. I accept that this is merely a carry-over motion, but many of us are concerned about certain aspects of the Bills. Because of the vagueness of the future of the Bills it is important that hon. Members should know what is involved before being asked to make a decision on the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. Member will agree that after 44 days of procedure in the other House it would be impossible and undesirable to bring all those papers before this House. It would be possible for the hon. Member, if he were so disposed, to obtain a copy from the other place.

Mr. Michael Alison: Further to the points of order that have been raised with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and particularly that raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I think that the hon. Gentleman made an important point and raised an important issue when he asked whether we were wasting our time in proposing to have, a three-hour debate now on the motion and the amendments to it. It would be helpful if the Chairman of Ways and Means could confirm that it the carry-over motion is passed, perhaps without debate, it is inevitable that there will be a proper House of Commons stage for consideration of the Bills. If the Chairman of Ways and Means could confirm that it would be an open question, perhaps hon. Members would not want to have a debate now on these Bills which would in any case be bound to come to the House in due course.

The Chairman of Ways and Means: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer that point of order. If the House passes the carry-over motion the House will have a complete and full opportunity to take the Bills through all their stages in the next Session of Parliament. To that extent the hon. Member is right when he says that a debate now—though this is a matter entirely for the House and not for me—would be superfluous. If the House is prepared to agree to the carry-over motion, it will be able to discuss the Bills in the next Session of Parliament.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Farther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we were to debate the carry-over motion, would it be out of order to discuss the Bill itself?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We should be discussing the carry-over motion.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If I may speak to the motion, as opposed to raising a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was waiting for the conclusion of the points of order.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: On a point of order, and by way of clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker. From the first answer which the Chairman of Ways and Means was good enough to give to the question of the thon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), I take it that when he said "the next Session of Parliament" he meant the next Session of this Parliament or the first Session of the ensuing Parliament, whichever circumstances might make it?

The Chairman of Ways and Means: That is, in fact, correct.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I feel that I ought to have the opportunity at least to put forward some reasons why at this stage we should not rush into this motion. It has been suggested that we shall have every opportunity to discuss this matter in the next Session of Parliament. But, as those hon. Members who have taken the trouble to look at these Bills will realise, they are very long and complicated. At least one contains over 183 clauses.
These Bills were first brought before Parliament supposedly as consolidation measures. They went through the advertising procedure which is laid down for a Private Bill. People who objected to them were entitled to put forward their objections both to the House of Lords and, in due course, to this House. But because of the way in which the Bills were put forward, as supposedly consolidation measures, very many people assumed that they were not controversial. Therefore, they did not put in any objections to them.
It was only as the Bills began to progress through the other House that people began to discover that they were rather more controversial and were not purely consolidation measures. If the carry-over motion is agreed today, we shall reduce the opportunity for some of those people, who now discover that they are controversial measures, to express their views on them.
I realise that the House is in a dilemma, because if it does not pass the carry-over motion it will involve the promoters in considerable extra expense. But if we pass the carry-over motion we thereby reduce the opportunities for people who would like to protest about at least one of the clauses in the Bills. Those of us who have been concerned about this particular clause have made representations to the promoters to try to persuade them to drop that area of controversy from what are supposed to be consolidation measures. Had we succeeded in persuading them to drop it, we could have continued with the non-controversial elements of the Bills.
The Bills were presented to the House as consolidation measures, and evidence of Bills starting their passage in another place rather than here is normally an indication that they are considered to be non-controversial consolidation measures. Had this happened, we should not need to be arguing the issue now. But I believe that because major issues of principle are involved we ought to be questioning at this stage, and asking the people who are so keenly promoting the Bills, whether they would agree to remove from them the provisions of major controversy.
I have received a large number of letters from trades councils, trade unions, civil liberty groups, and groups such as the Scouts and many others who are concerned about the clause dealing with processions. In the Cheshire County Council Bill it is clause 30, in the West Yorkshire Bill it is clause 42, in the West Midlands County Council Bill it is clause 53, and in the County of Merseyside Bill it was clause 42, although I believe it is now clause 42A and clause 43. This clause, often referred to as a common clause, relates to people having to give notice about—

Mrs. Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to discuss clauses of the Bills when, as I


understand it, all we can discuss at the moment is the narrow question whether the Bills should be carried over? Is not this speech verging on matters which are out of order? May I ask for your guidance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are amendments which could be moved. Those amendments are quite narrow, and it appears to me that the hon. Gentleman is straying from the amendments and the motion.

Mr. Rooker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the point which my hon. Friend is justifiably making in this forum of democracy, where we are supposed to debate such issues, is that certain people outside this House have been prevented from making known their views on these Bills during the parliamentary process in the other place. Under the present system people are entitled to two bites of the cherry—one in the Commons and one in the Lords—and I do not want to take that away from our fellow citizens. The point which my hon. Friend is making is perfectly justifiable in that certain sections of society have been deprived of making known their views to the House of Lords.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point is that the persons mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will have ample opportunity of making these points when the House debates the matter, assuming that the carryover motion is agreed to. If it is not agreed to, the unfortunate local councillors concerned will be involved in immense expense.

Mr. Bennett: It seemed to me that it was at least reasonable to suggest those reasons why I and many other hon. Members are uneasy about these Bills proceeding. They can proceed only if the carryover motion is agreed to. Therefore, it seems to be at least reasonable to enlighten the House about the area which concerns myself and many other hon. Members, namely, the completely new provision in the Bills that seven days notice shall be given of processions. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not new".] I hear two of my hon. Friends say that this is not new. I should like to develop my argu-

ment. I have been informed that in respect of the County of Merseyside Bill this is not a new power. I hope that I can eventually get to the point where I can indicate my views on the amendments, but I should first like to develop the point that this is a completely new power for many of those areas contained in the Bills.
These are claimed to be consolidation measures, but with the exception of the old City of Liverpool—where one had to give seven days' notice of one's intention to hold a procession—in almost all the other areas, if there was any statutory notice, it was either three days or 36 hours. It seems very hard to claim that these are consolidation measures when they seek to change 36 hours' notice into seven days' notice. That seems to be a major change of substance which was not made clear when the Bills were advertised. But many groups of people have written to me pointing out that this is a major change.
As a result of the representations that have been made, I understand that the West Yorkshire authority is prepared to drop its clause from the West Yorkshire Bill and that at the earliest opportunity it will be taking that action. I understand that its willingness to do so was mainly due to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison), who has worked hard—he has taken up the representations of trade unionists in his area and also those on behalf of the West Yorkshire authority, which is concerned about the costs—to ensure that the two interests are met. The two interests have met, because the authority is now suggesting that it would be happy to withdraw the clause. That would allow the rest of the Bill, most of which is non-controversial, to proceed through the House, thus ensuring that the ratepayers' money was well spent. I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for having brought about this concession. I am, of course, rather disappointed that some of the other authorities have not been prepared to follow that sensible lead.
I should like to turn briefly to the question of Merseyside because as a result of lobbying from representatives of Merseyside I believe that that area has some particular problems. I was well aware that there was a tradition of


marches in that area and that those marches took place on a sectarian basis, but I was not aware that there have been byelaws in that area for about 50 years dealing with these marches. Had the County of Merseyside Bill merely contained a continuation of those byelaws, there could have been no objection to it.

Mr. Loyden: It has been said that this is a consolidation measure, but in respect of Merseyside that is not the case. The Merseyside county council is a new authority; it was part of the Liverpool city council. We are now talking of extending powers to other authorities in the Merseyside county to which these regulations have not been applied.

Mr. Bennett: I accept what my hon. Friend says, and I shall be developing my argument about Merseyside. I accept the argument about consolidation. It will extend the powers in Liverpool to the rest of the Merseyside authority. The Bill will extend the byelaws of Liverpool to the rest of Merseyside. The byelaws deal with the problem of the seven days' notice by including a provision which more or less says that this may happen only "where practicable". However, if one wants to organise a demonstration, following some spontaneous development such as a road accident about which parents wish to demonstrate immediately, or if there is an international incident, or a strike, or an industrial dispute, and people wish to demonstrate by going on to the highway, there is some provision for such demonstrations within the present structure of byelaws. If the Merseyside Bill goes forward, I shall be pressing the authority hard in further debates on this issue to make further concessions. It appears that the authority has a reasonable argument.
I have very much less faith in the approach of Cheshire and the West Midlands authorities which seem determined to push ahead with this common clause, with no safeguards to cover spontaneous demonstrations. Those who seek to ensure that the measure passes tonight should give certain assurances. What happens if somebody wants to organise a demonstration quickly in his area? If this legislation is passed, such a person will have to give seven days' notice. It may be said, "The police will turn a blind eye", but it is not good legislation

to try to persuade the police to turn a blind eye. We need clear legislation.
Those who wish to see this Bill pass should explain how they see the position. Let us suppose that an accident occurs on a zebra crossing and that angry parents wish to protest or demonstrate. If they stay on the footpath and go down to county hall they can demonstrate, but if they want to march down the street with banners they will have to give seven days' notice. When that kind of tragic incident occurs, people often want to demonstrate their feelings quickly and do not wish to give seven days' notice.
Furthermore, let us assume that an international situation develops in which again people quickly want to demonstrate to show their feelings or to suggest that the Government take a particular line. We have only to think back to the Suez invasion or the situation that developed between the United States and Cuba over Russian missiles. On those occasions people demonstrated almost immediately by having processions in the street. These provisions appear to make that kind of demonstration illegal. One cannot do that if one has to wait seven days, because events will not wait that long.
The promoters could have come up with a formula to remove the absolute requirement of seven days' notice. If an organisation wishes to organise a demonstration or procession in, say, three weeks' time, it has to put out leaflets and it should tell the police of its intentions and make arrangements to avoid traffic difficulties and all the rest of it. However, this clause does not deal with that situation. Instead, it puts an absolute ban on people demonstrating in the streets in processions unless they give seven days' notice.
I appeal to those who wish this Bill to go through to provide a solution to the problem by allowing spontaneous demonstrations to take place. If that does not happen, civil rights could be seriously eroded. If this Bill goes through in this form, we shall upset many groups—not only trades unionists, but Scout groups and others who on occasions wish to form themselves into processions in the streets. They may not be able to give the correct amount of notice and it will be unfortunate if, by allowing this


clause to pass, we lose civil rights. On the other hand, if we object to the Bill, we shall involve the ratepayers of the West Midlands and Cheshire in considerable expense in trying to reintroduce what was regarded as a non-controversial measure.
Therefore, I beg those who support the Bill to see whether they can go a little further and make concessions on this matter.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. David Hunt: I wish to speak to two of the Bills, because by constituency falls within Cheshire and Merseyside. I strongly support the terms of the carry-over motion.
I wish to answer the argument of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) on the subject of processions. The hon. Gentleman appears to have a number of misconceptions about the way in which that provision will operate. May I point out that the clause in its present form does not govern spontaneous demonstrations. It is quite clear that it applies only to organised street processions. It must be an organised street procession other than for charitable purposes, and it does not apply to the sort of spontaneous demonstration to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that if somebody at a factory gate suggests that he and his colleagues should walk down the street to another factory to persuade people either to stop work or to return to work, that event will be covered? I understand that in such circumstances if one goes on to the street as opposed to the pavement that constitutes a procession.

Mr. Hunt: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I wish that he would read through the 41-day debate in the other place because he will see that this matter was canvassed most carefully. This is surely the kind of point that should be taken in Committee when this Bill, thanks to the carry-over motion, moves forward. I understand that the promoters would like to safeguard the rights of trade unionists and of anybody who wishes to participate in a legal demonstration or a legally-organised street procession. I am sure that already some

compromises have been made and others will follow, but this is a matter for debate in Committee and not on the carry-over motion.
The second point is that the clause as drafted does not make it an offence to participate in a non-notified procession. It merely deals with the position where such an event has been organised in advance. It makes it a penalty for the organiser not to notify the police so that they can take adequate precautions to protect the public and property.
Thirdly, the clause gives no power to the public or to the district council to prohibit the procession. It is concerned only with notice of the fact of the procession and the route, to enable measures of public protection and safety to be planned in advance.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. Clause 43(1) of the County of Merseyside Bill says:
No person shall organise or conduct a procession through any street in a district unless, 7 days before the procession starts to pass through any street, there has been delivered…a notice.
That is laid down clearly in the Bill.

Mr. Hunt: As a lawyer, my interpretation of the clause as a model clause in the Cheshire and Merseyside Bills—and I have not closely studied Clause 43 mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—does not prohibit an organised street procession. However, that is the kind of point which can be dealt with in Committee. This is not the time to discuss the matter.
I wish to point out that in Merseyside there were 13,000 clauses in local legislation. For five years local councillors have been sitting in working parties occupying themselves late at night trying to consolidate all these clauses and to rationalise the legislation. If they have erred here and there, it is up to us to put the position right in Committee. But if we do not agree to this carry-over motion, all that work will be lost. They have managed to reduce 13,000 clauses in 315 local Acts to a Bill containing roughly 150 clauses. That in itself is a feat to be admired. We should not allow the Bills to die. It would mean that public expenditure of about £500,000 would be lost if they died now after 41 days in another place.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I remind him that when the earlier West Midlands Bill came before the House there were two clauses, or perhaps three, to which the Opposition objected. They insisted upon throwing out the whole Bill. They threw the baby out with the bath water, thereby allowing considerable expense to be incurred, instead of letting the Bill go into Committee. I only hone that the House will behave more responsibly tonight.

Mr. Hunt: As I understand it, that stance was taken on Second Reading. I cannot be held to be blameless in these matters because I spoke for slightly under three hours to ensure the continuance of the Mersey ferry. I was able to do so thanks to the assistance of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. Of all hon. Members, it may be that I can speak with some authority. I spoke for slightly under three hours when the House was debating the Bill itself. A number of important matters were raised and we almost reached agreement. Tonight we are debating a technical carry-over motion. If the motion is lost, that will have great significance in all areas covered by the Bills and other areas that will have to produce similar local legislation in future.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: We are debating a technical motion, but if there are outstanding problems that hon. Members feel should be cleared up does the hon. Gentleman agree that now is surely the time to do so, so that when the Bill returns to us it may be changed and we may have it in front of us in a form that will allow even further concessions to be made? If that is done, we probably will not need a great debate in the House.

Mrs. Knight: Is that what the hon. Gentleman says?

Mr. Heffer: I suggest that the hon. Lady listens and takes the arguments on board.

Mr. Hunt: I share the hope of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that important matters will be raised and that they will be considered. We are being given an adequate opportunity to do so.
I hope that Labour hon. Members will not take the opportunity that is given to them tonight to sink these important local Bills. It is important that matters of substance are raised so that constituents and trade unionists who have already made representations may further consult on the important issues. I hope that that consultation will take place during the recess so that when we come to discuss the Bill we shall have had an opportunity of considering the clauses with our constituents and all other groups.
A number of representations were made to me by trade unionists and others at Ellesmere Port and Neston at a recent meeting. We have before us crucial clauses for industry and for attracting local industry and there is concern that they will be lost if the Merseyside Bill is lost. There are many other crucial clauses. I hope that Labour Members will not take the opportunity of sinking the Bills at great loss to public funds.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. George Park: We would not be in the present difficulty at the fag end of the Session if, when the West Midlands Bill was last presented with a Labour administration at the county council, the Opposition had not taken the opportunity to deal with it party politically. That is how they chose to deal with it. Their sole desire was to kill the Bill. They took no account of the fact that the Bills are not promoted because of any wish of the local authorities. These Bills are being promoted because we say so. That has arisen on account of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972, under which all local legislation, with some exceptions, ceases to have effect in 1979. That is why there is some urgency.
The shoe is now on the other foot. We have a Conservative administration at the West Midlands County Council and a similar Bill has been brought forward. I can appreciate the temptation facing some of my hon. Friends to mete out the same treatment as was accorded to the earlier Bill. However, like the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt), I hope that my hon. Friends will take a more responsible view and will allow a carry-over into the next Session so that time and money will be saved and full discussion will be permitted on any issues on which there are doubts and on which it is wished to move


amendments. Following such discussion, it is my understanding that the promoters of the West Midlands Bill would be willing to abide by whatever decisions were arrived at in Parliament.

Mr. Rooker: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is speaking on behalf of the promoters. I ask him to elaborate his last remarks. Is he able to say on behalf of the promoters that they would propose to remove the clause, and not merely to concur with the decision of the House? Would they be prepared to put forward an amendment with which the House might agree or disagree?

Mr. Park: I cannot go that far. I said what was my understanding, and that is as far as I can go. It is my understanding that the promoters would be willing to abide by the decision of the House. That is something and nothing. Of course they must abide by whatever decision the House takes. They would rather have rejection after a discussion in the House than a rejection based on procedure, merely by shouting "Object". That is a reasonable approach to take.
It may be news to at least one of my hon. Friends but we have had street procession powers in Coventry since 1920.

Mr. Loyden: Since Lady Godiva.

Mr. Park: Very nearly.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How many days' notice was required in Coventry?

Mr. Park: In 1920, 24 hours' notice was required. That was extended to 48 hours' notice. In 1969 other authorities embodied street procession powers. Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton all took the powers.

Mr. Bennett: How many hours?

Mr. Park: As I have said, 48 hours.

Mr. Flannery: That is not seven days.

Mr. Park: That is something that can be dealt with in Committee. That is not an insurmountable obstacle.

Mr. Rooker: I raise not a Committee point but a point of principle. My hon. Friend has said that Coventry has street procession powers. I find that clause 53 of the West Midlands Bill specifically states that Coventry does not have such

powers. It seems that Birmingham and Coventry are the only two authorities in the West Midlands that would gain street procession powers if the Bill were enacted. That is as plain as a pikestaff. It seems that the other five authorities have such powers and Coventry has not.

Mr. Park: I can only ask my hon. Friend to accept my words as a former leader of Coventry council. I tell him that Coventry has such powers whatever may be stated in the Bill.

Mr. Ogden: If you did not have them, you used them.

Mr. Park: I have never known any great trouble arise from the exercise of the powers.
The Bills before us are only the forerunners of many more such Bills. Consolidation will have to take place in many other local authorities. If we continue to kill these Bills by procedural means without consideration of the merits or demerits of particular clauses, we shall ultimately bring local government into total chaos. That is because it will suffer from a lack of powers.
Many of my hon. Friends wish to see local government restructured. To kill these Bills procedurally is surely not the way to do it. I urge support for the carry-over motion.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I shall be brief. Those who have argued that the purpose or intention of my hon. Friends is to kill the Bill should be made aware that there has been genuine concern about some parts of the Bill. If that concern had been met in the way suggested tonight, there would not have been the intention to kill the Bill. Tonight's debate has given those who have a direct interest to understand more fully the objects of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has raised an important matter. The House may satisfy itself that there is an opportunity for it to consider the Bill in Committee. Parliament must have regard to public accountability.
As has been said, organisations affected by the Merseyside Bill may want to make representations. The opportunity will not be available to them because we shall be voting for the carry-over motion tonight.
It is certainly not my intention or that of my hon. Friend to kill the Bill. However, we want to alert the House to the fact that there is unease about certain aspects of the Bill and the clause which has been central to this debate.
Those who argue that there is a peculiar situation on Merseyside—sectarianism—do not know Liverpool in 1978. I was born in the city of Liverpool and remember when that was the situation in the 1920s. There were sectarian confrontations in the 1920s and 1930s. But the Orange Lodge processions in Liverpool now attract only their own supporters. I should like to hear about the last time that arrests were made in Liverpool during an Orange Lodge procession due to sectarian confrontation. That is an additional burden that Liverpool has had to carry because of misrepresentation. Therefore, anyone who argues the need for the clause on the ground of sectarian processions in Liverpool could not put that forward as justification.
We should express our views to the House. No one wants the baby to be thrown out with the bath water. However, we want to protect the freedoms of our constituents and of organisations. Their freedoms should be sustained. There are sufficient taws on the statute book—laws relating to assembly and conspiracy—to deal with these problems without having additional unnecessary and undesirable laws in different localities.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Robin Hodgson: I should like to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) about the balance of advantage in the two courses of action open to the House tonight. The point of substance made by Labour Members concerns the regulations governing processions. I accept that there is real concern about this matter and that there are certain circumstances in which this will be an extremely important issue, but I think that we need to keep a sense of perspective on the action that we should take.
The motion will be either carried or not carried. We have been assured by the Chairman of Ways and Means that, if the motion is carried, a full debate will take place in the next Session.
Hon. Members on both sides have referred to doubts and problems. I am concerned about the storage of wastepaper and other matters, not as dramatic as processions, but none the less important for certain sections of my constituency.
If the motion is not carried, the costs and difficulties will be almost incalculable. First, there will be the direct costs in cash terms of having to resurrect the measures. Secondly, there is the question of damage to the economic fabric of the urban areas covered by the county councils in question. These county councils desperately wish to attract jobs and to have secure legislative background with which to carry out the process of attraction. Therefore, if we fail to pass the motion, we shall be in real danger of worsening an already difficult economic situation in these urban areas.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) referred to the ending of legislative powers because of the running out of the statutory powers of the old authorities. When hon. Members consider the balance of advantage—ending the Bills for ever or allowing further discussion in the next Session—I am sure they will agree that the motion should be carried.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I shall not take up the time of the House for very long. I am perturbed about this matter. Liverpool already has such regulations, but over a long time they have not been applied rigidly.
I have organised and led many demonstrations on different matters. If one is involved in an industrial dispute one can hardly give seven days' notice if, having come out on strike on Monday, one decides to have a march round the streets of Liverpool on Wednesday. Yet dozens of such demonstrations or marches have been held. Therefore, it seems ridiculous to argue for something which we have not rigidly applied.
Problems used to arise in the city of Liverpool with the Orange Lodge processions and counter-processions. For example, in the old sectarian days, lodge marches through certain areas were bound to cause trouble. It does not happen now. That is because the people concerned have learned a great deal of


sense. In any case, those who might be in opposition do not care any more because they live in peace with everyone else. Such people look elsewhere in the United Kingdom and are perturbed at what they see happening. Therefore, they are determined not to allow it to happen in their city.
Why do we need an extension of these powers from Liverpool into every other part of Merseyside? I shall not hold up the Merseyside Bill. However, I should like to give notice to the promoters of the Bill that this matter concerns us greatly. The other Bills are more rigid than that which applies on Merseyside. The Merseyside formulation is not too bad. Indeed, it is fairly mild. But the formulation in the other Bills is very rigid.
I agree that, as has been said, this power could be an attack on our basic civil liberties. Demonstrating is one of our most important rights. For example, the ladies in my constituency who are rightly clamouring for a dinner centre in the Blessed Sacrament School are entitled to demonstrate if they wish. Indeed, they have the right to organise marches and to demonstrate in other parts of my constituency. Powers relating to breach of the peace and so on are still available to chief constables and others under other Acts.
I shall not oppose the motion. I shall not do what was done by the Opposition when, in my opinion, they acted totally irresponsibly. The Opposition do not know how to act in any other way. But I put it to those who are here listening to the debate—I understand they are never here, because under the rules only Members of Parliament can be here—or I put it to the promoters of these Bills that, when they come back to the House and we debate these matters in detail, they should be prepared to remove the offending clauses and to put them in terms acceptable to Labour Members. I make that suggestion on the basis of civil rights and liberties and on the right to demonstrate, even on a quick basis, if people think it essential.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: My hon. Friends have raised many important issues, though I do not accept the sugges-

tion that local government in this country is the guardian of the liberties of our citizens. The opposite is true—and that applies to both parties at local level. The guardians of the liberties of the people of this country are this House and, for the time being, the place along the corridor. I do not push that too hard, but it is important in this debate. While we still have a House of Lords, it is important that the people of this country are able to use both Chambers to put their case on private and on public legislation.
Several organisations have had no opportunity to put their point of view to noble Lords. If they had done so, we would probably not be having this debate because I am sure that those noble Lords who are not partisan and who lift themselves above the cut and thrust of party politics would have seen sense and removed these clauses. We shall not be able to find out whether that is so if the carry-over motion is passed.
The Cheshire county council circulated a letter to Cheshire Members indicating that they ought to vote for the carry-over motion and claiming that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and I do not like one of the clauses in the Bill. That is not strictly true. There is a clause in the West Midlands Bill to which I take even more exception than I take to the clause dealing with processions.
I am not irresponsible and I shall not seek to use that clause as a plank for throwing out the Bill because the people involved with that clause—the licensing justices in Birmingham—have had an opportunity of putting their case to noble Lords. The clause will open a gate to allow criminal elements to take over late-night drinking establishments in Birmingham. It will go through this House over my dead body and over the bodies of the lawyers and teetotallers who want to support the justices in Birmingham over the Bill's provisions. However, the licensing justices have at least had an opportunity to make representations to their Lordships.
The Birmingham trades council has had no such opportunity in relation to the processions clause. There was no consultation carried out by the district council or the West Midlands county council. I have a letter from the secretary of the trades council, Sir David


Perris, a highly respected man who is also chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority. He says:
Further to our recent telephone conversation, I am writing to say how opposed we are to Clause 53 of the Bill.
That is the processions clause. He has confirmed this morning that no consultation took place—contrary to what was said in the Birmingham Evening Mail last Friday when the usual malicious little article appeared concerning myself and points I had raised about tonight's debate.
The leader of the West Midlands county council, Councillor John Taylor, complained that it was irresponsible for us even to have a debate. These democrats at local level do not want to accept that the only way we can debate any private business is for us formally to object to it so that we can get time for a debate. Of course, that is never made clear by Conservative Members. Councillor Taylor said that "all this good work" by Conservatives and Labour councillors at county and district level would be destroyed. His implication was that everybody agreed with everything. That may be true for the councillors, but they forgot to have a chat with the Birmingham trades council about it. I also understand that the County Association of Trades Councils had no opportunity to talk to their Lordships about the problem of processions.
In addition, the TUC did not know about the proposals. No opportunity was given to the national body representing 11 million workers in this country to put its views to their Lordships. I do not know what the Prime Minister will make of all this when the matter is raised with him by Len Murray. No doubt my right hon. Friend has more important things on his mind, but the TUC will not stand for this proposal and extreme pressure will be put on the Government, even though this is Private Business. There are ways in ensuring that changes are made and matters are brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
In my simpleness, I believe that the TUC and these other bodies should have had an opportunity to make representations to another place. Even at this late stage, they should be given the opportunity to put their case. It is important for this House to safeguard the rights of such organisations.
This will be classed as a civil liberties clause. The National Council for Civil Liberties has become aware of the problem only in the last three months—much too late to make representations because the time for lodging petitions with another place expired in January. The NCCL is collecting the evidence that we shall require later to meet the arguments of the promoters if the clauses remain.
It is not just the trade union and industrial relations aspect which is important. The case on processions does not rest on that aspect. In many ways the fact that trade unions are organised and have the necessary muscle to put their case means that they do not need protection as much as do ordinary citizens who organise only when something happens to make them organise. I have had a number of spontaneous demonstrations in my constituency. For example, there is a zebra crossing in my constituency on which frequently people were killed. There were four or five dealths in 10 years. Last time the victim was a child of five or six, and there was a spontaneous demonstration and a march on the local police station. People marched down the road—that was a procession—and blocked the road—that was not a procession and would not be covered by the Bill. They were stopped for obstructing the highway, but no prosecution ensued.
Since then, matters have improved and the junction has been redesigned, but only because of the pressure that those local people were able to exert. Those citizens were able to make the authorities understand that they had had enough. They marched to the local police station with good effect. They were peaceful, law-abiding citizens. We are here to make sure that the liberties of such people are not eroded, as they will be if the clause stays in the Bill unamended.
There was another example in my constituency about two years ago. It was a first-class example of how protests can erupt without warning, which is the sort of situation in which we must protect our people. At 7 o'clock in the morning, several of my constituents received through the post notice of a planning application for an itinerants' site. One's views on the provision of such sites are not important in this case. My constituents were given 16 days in which to comment and lodge objections, but at 10


o'clock the same morning the bulldozers arrived on site. This happened in four areas of Birmingham, including areas in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) and in my constituency. Of course, it did not take long for the tom-toms to get cracking and there was a demonstration.

Mrs. Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is all this in order?

Mr. Rooker: It is that sort of anti-citizen, anti-democratic attitude that this debate is about. The hon. Lady wants to stop debate in the House. She could stand charged with hypocrisy.

Mr. Alison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) raised a point of order and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who is a man of versatile energy and disposition, took it upon himself to rule on the point of order. I suggest that in the interests of my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston you should rule on the point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I had given an indication to the hon. Lady, which perhaps had not reached the hon. Gentleman, that it appeared to me to be relevant to the discussion

Mr. Rooker: I am extremely grateful for your contention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that my hon. Friends and those outside, who listen to these debates these days, will note that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) wanted to silence debate tonight.

Mrs. Knight: I have learned in this Chamber that one must keep to the point on the matter that one is debating. My understanding of the matter was that we were debating the narrow point of whether the Bill should be carried over. I have absolutely no wish to stifle debate on the Bill. When that time comes, I shall be taking my place in the debate with the hon. Gentleman, if he is still here.

Mr. Rooker: The question is whether the hon. Lady will be here.
We are debating the carry-over motion. The point I was making, the central point at issue, is that certain citizens outside, whose rights we are here to protect,

have been deprived of an opportunity within the parliamentary process that exists, the two Chambers, of making known their views. It is very difficult for citizens who may wish from time to time to have a spontaneous demonstration to make known their point of view in the House of Lords. I am giving two examples from my constituency—I have not finished giving the second one—of where some of my constituents, to whose attention I have drawn this matter, have said "Yes, we could have gone and told the House of Lords the problem that we had and why we were moved to take the action that we took on those days, and that would have assisted the House of Lords in making sure that they understood the implications of these clauses." However, they were deprived of the opportunity of se doing.
As I was saying before the hon. Lady intervened with her point of order, at 10 o'clock, three hours after the warning, the bulldozers arrived on site. My constituents got organised. Not only did they demonstrate: they marched in procession. They kept it up for about two weeks before the matter was finally disposed of very quietly.
Without the facility to carry out that action as ordinary law-abiding citizens, causing no one any harm, they might not have succeeded. It is that sort of example of a spontaneous demonstration which takes the implication of the clause much wider than the industrial relations aspects.
There is a further example. It is an industrial relations example, but it is just as important because it took place in Birmingham this year. That was the announcement of a factory closure. It is true that the 90 days' warning was given, but people in the Typhoo factory in the inner city of Birmingham wanted to complain about it. They assembled outside the factory one morning and marched to a local hall to have a meeting, to be addressed by their trade union officials and by myself, on how best to fight the closure.
That procession was organised within about 12 hours, and certainly less than a day. It would have been caught by the clause because the people concerned actually marched. Two inches of snow fell just before they started out. People were falling all over the place, let alone


marching. They were on the pavements and in the roads, in the back streets of Digbeth in Birmingham. But they would have been caught by the clause.
Those who have been caught, or those such as trade unionists, have managed quite satisfactorily in Birmingham, as far as the trades council is concerned, with even spontaneous demonstrations in the last few years. They have good relationships with the police. I am told by Sir David Ferris this morning:
You may say we have a close working relationship with the police, with consultation over the last 15 years about any demonstrations or processions, to be more accurate, that we wish to organise. We have had no difficulty.
What is objected to is the fact that these days the police have a meeting at which everything is written down, and then everyone is expected to agree with it afterwards, and the stewards on demonstrations get into a spot of bother.
Nevertheless, there has been no trouble in Birmingham, other than during the by-election at Ladywood last year. That trouble could have been caught under the Public Order Act. It had nothing to do with this sort of nonsense. That was during a parliamentary by-election and was quite clearly, as most National Front issues are, a matter to be dealt with under the Public Order Act.
That brings me to a further point as to why this House should further consider the implications of this clause. We are not talking just about local government.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The hon. Member is making a very powerful and persuasive speech on the merits of the clause, but does not he agree that surely the right time for that is when the Bill is being debated on Second Reading, and, if necessary, in any Committee with any Instruction? Surely he cannot justify taking up a great deal of the time of the House now merely on a motion giving the right to debate that issue in the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. Rooker: I shall be coming to the hon. and learned Gentleman shortly, in respect of another matter. But I do not accept that point. I was about to raise another issue. In this Chamber we are now talking to those outside who are listening to us. I understand the conven-

tion which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) mentioned.
We may say to the county councils, the promoters of these Bills—they might have got the message by now, or they will get it when they read the newspapers tomorrow—that there may be a bit of trouble in getting these Bills through on the nod next Session if the carry-over motion is carried. It may be said that this is all local government. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West said that these were very important issues. I accept that. There is a lot of good stuff in these Bills for which we must legislate; otherwise we shall have chaos in local government. I want that no more than any other responsible Member.
But I understand that the heavy hand of the Home Office is behind these clauses. I have been told today that the permanent secretary to the Home Office has been on to the administrators in the Whips' Office and has said "Do not bother about getting concessions on this. Leave it. They do not have enough troops." That is what the Home Office is saying about this matter. I am told that these clauses are in these Bills with the approval of the Home Office, because these clauses, if passed, put the onus on chief constables. The Home Office will be tickled pink to shift this little problem on to chief constables, away from where it rightly belongs—with the Home Secretary and the chief constables, under the Public Order Act, by which they can be accountable to this House.

Mr. Ogden: I think that we can prove between us that this House is a place of contrasting rumours. I am told exactly the opposite—that the Home Office does not want the clauses and that one of the reasons that the Government are reluctant to support them as effectively as they might is that the Home Office does not want them. But the House of Commons must decide eventually whether they are to be in the Bills.

Mr. Rooker: That is the great problem when we are discussing Private Business. Some time ago I saw the Under-Secretary move as if to rise to speak. I hope that we shall hear a Government view on this matter. Usually with Private Business a Minister intervenes. If my


hon. Friend wishes to intervene, I shall gladly give way. It appears that my hon. Friend has nothing to say. Therefore, I shall continue.
I hope that the Government will have a positive view on this matter. It would be a reassurance to my hon. Friends. Many of them are members of the Government, and Ministers cannot rise to speak on these issues. From the Back Benches we know that there are very many Ministers who are totally opposed to the concept in this Bill and will oppose it on a free vote, root and branch, if we ever reach a debate in Committee. It would be of great help to them if we had the Government's view.
Usually with private business no one is in the Chamber to speak with authority on behalf of the promoters. We cannot actually ask a question and get a positive answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) has heard one rumour. I have heard another. I have had a running dispute with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West. The matter is not settled. We are debating this Bill and not his view of local government. Coventry is not listed on page 39 of the West Midlands County Council Bill.
As I have said, we have this problem, and I hope that the Minister will be a little more forthcoming about the Government's view. But I smell the Home Office behind this issue. I shall need a good deal of convincing that the Home Office does not have an attitude of acquiescence or ambivalence that will put this problem in the laps of chief constables. I have not discussed the matter with my own chief constable. He was a bit horrified when I said that the Bill would not go through on the nod. There were many other matters about which he was concerned, although this matter was not raised during our conversation.
Many hon. Members have raised the issue of the public expenditure involved in Bills having come this far and then failed. I am the first to admit that there is a problem here. The hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) mentioned £500,000. I have heard other figures. I have not heard that sum. That probably takes account of all the background stuff on all the Bills. I heard that the cost was £40,000 for one Bill, and if that fig-

ure were grossed up for all the Bills the figure would probably be £250,000 if all were reprinted as they are now. It may have cost £500,000 to get this far, but it would probably not cost that much to start all over again. I accept that it would cost the ratepayers money, and I would rather that that was spent on social service departments, education, better reads and many other things. I put that argument forward in 1976, and so did my hon. Friends.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) that the Merseyside Bill, as amended, is vastly superior to the other three Bills. If we come to a Division later, although I do not suppose that we shall if we have a positive statement from the Government, I shall not vote against the Merseyside Bill, in the light of the points that have been made tonight and the concessions that have been given. I understand that the West Yorkshire Bill has been dropped, so I shall not vote against that either. That leaves the Cheshire and West Midlands Bills.
There was a West Midlands County Council Bill before the House in 1976 and another in 1977. The latter went through on the nod because it contained the good parts of the 1976 Bill. They included powers to give grants for sound insulation for people living near airports or near improved roads not within the scope of the Land Compensation Act.

Mr. Alf Bates: My constituency is covered both by the Merseyside county council and the Cheshire county council. My hon. Friend said that the position on Merseyside appeared to be different from that in Cheshire. Will he consider what would happen if some of my constituents—say those working at the Vauxhall car plant—wished to organise a demonstration which would cross the boundary between Cheshire and Merseyside? Of whom would they have to ask permission? What would happen if they wished to organise a spontaneous demonstration and were permitted to march in Merseyside but not in Cheshire? In such a circumstance would not the situation created by these Bills be ludicrous?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend has raised an important point, but it can best be answered in detail by those hon. Members who know the area. They would be


able to name the roads along which their constituents might wish to walk. I am unfamiliar with the area. However, the difference between the Bills creates an awkward predicament for my hon. Friends' constituents. No one on the Conservative Benches has addressed himself to this point. It may be suggested that this is a Committee stage point, but I believe it to be a point of principle which arises from the substantial difference between the Merseyside Bill and the other Bills.
We are faced here with the fundamental issue of public expenditure. I do not want the ratepayers' money in my constituency to be wasted now as it was in 1976 due to the actions of the hon. Members for Edgbaston and Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), and the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). They were all there on 11 th February 1976 voting on a party whip on private business to oppose the Bill lock, stock and barrel. I do not think that the hon. Member for Wirral was in the House at that time. He is certainly not on the Division list.

Mrs. Knight: Earlier the hon. Member was extolling the virtues of debate and democracy. Surely hon. Members are at liberty to vote against any Bill or clause that they believe to be wrong, just as the hon. Member intends, if ever we reach that point, to vote later. Surely there was nothing wrong with voting against something which at the time stirred up great disagreement.

Mr. Rooker: That is precisely my point. The hon. Lady could not have been listening, or perhaps she left the Chamber for a moment. The 1977 West Midlands Bill which went through on the nod contained all the good parts of the 1976 Bill. If the hon. Lady had done what she wrongly claims she did and had supported the 1976 Bill on Second Reading but voted to delete the trading clauses to which the Tories objected, my constituents and other Birmingham citizens would not have had to wait another 12 months to enjoy the benefit of the good parts of the 1976 Bill which had to go through separately at enormous cost. She cost her constituents a fortune by her action on 11th February 1976, and so did the other Conservative Members concerned. Let me check whether the

hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) was there—oh yes, he was there too. I hope, therefore, that we shall not get any speeches from those hon. Members about the possible cost to local authorities if the Bill does not go through. I hope that we shall be spared any cant or hypocrisy from them.
I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you should rule their speeches out of order. If you wish I shall hand you the Division List of 11th February 1976. That was a sorry day in this House when the Tory Party imposed a three-line Whip on private business. That was unprecedented in the history of this House. Never before had a party been whipped on Private Business. The Tories beat us hook line and sinker by 268 votes to 104. The tragedy was that there were insufficient Labour Members with enough guts to stay and vote for a Labour Bill, because that is what it was. That was the irresponsible action of hon. Members like the hon. Member for Edgbaston.

Mr. Hodgson: Is it not true that the 1976 West Midlands Bill provided additional special powers? Tonight's Bill is purely a consolidation measure and is therefore distinctly different.

Mr. Rooker: I had intended to finish my speech, but the hon. Member reminds me that there is a point that I have not touched upon. It is the misuse of the word "consolidation". I do not charge the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) with hypocrisy because he was not here in February 1976. He is wrong, however. The 1976 Bill gave increased powers to a county council. There were good parts of it. Nevertheless, the baby went out with the bath water, and those parts, which went out when the Bill was voted down, had to be brought back at great cost.
I mentioned this point about consolidation to the county secretary in the West Midlands and he explained that the word "consolidation" meant something different as between Public Business and Private Business. We have great difficulty debating public consolidation Bills. They do not change the law and they go through more or less on the nod. It is very difficult for an hon. Member to make a meaningful speech on such a Bill. This Private Bill, however, is not a consolidation Bill in that sense. Birmingham


and Coventry are the two districts in the West Midlands that are not covered by the seven-day notice. The districts that are covered are Dudley, Walsall, West Bromwich—which I think is called Sandwell—Wolverhampton and Warley. We are told that in the note in the margin on page 39.
If we were only consolidating old Acts and byelaws after local government reorganisation, of which this Bill is a consequence, there would be no change in the law for my constituents. In those circumstances I would not be taking up the time of the House. There is, however, a change in the law affecting my constituents and all Birmingham citizens. That is why we are here tonight. I thought that I had laboured that point sufficiently with examples from my constituency. If I have not convinced the hon. Member for Walsall, North, I am sure that I can drag up a few more examples in an attempt to convince him.

Mr. David Hunt: May I make a plea to the hon. Member? He has already given notice that he intends to differentiate between the County of Merseyside Bill and the Cheshire County Council Bill. They contain exactly the same clauses relating to processions. I should like him, together with his hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Bates), to confer with the local trades council in that area. I was at a meeting last Friday which comprised the trades council and many other representatives of industry in Ellesmere Port and Neston, where tremendous concern was expressed that the very important clauses relating to industry might be lost. Those clauses in the Cheshire County Council Bill are desperately needed so that industry can be attracted to Ellesmere Port and Neston, which have an unemployment rate of 15·3 per cent. Will the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) please, before he makes his final decision, at least consult the trade unions in Ellesmere Port and Neston to find out how strongly they feel? I believe their feeling to be very strong.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member for Wirral has made an excellent point, but he did not name the trades council. If he will name it, I shall know the name of the council with which to consult. It

would be useful to have the name on the record. The valuable parts of the Bill are those which are concerned with jobs and prosperity, and they are important to trades councils. I would ask those trades councils, in the intervening period between now and next Session, to contact their local Members of Parliament, of whatever party, and say to them "You had better vote to take out clauses 42 and 53, or get them amended, or we shall lose the valuable parts of the Bill." The hon. Member for Edgbaston has a damn nerve, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to nod her head on that. Members of the Opposition are showing hypocrisy this evening of a sort that I have not seen in four and a half years. The whole point is that we do not want the good bits of these Bills to be lost. That clearly would be irresponsible.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have answered the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt). Clearly, in relation to the West Midlands, the hon. Member is free to say and do exactly what he wants. But why does he suggest that on the general merits, which can be debated in the next Session, there is at the moment, on the question of suspension, any difference between the Cheshire County Council Bill and the County of Merseyside Bill, both of which contain the same clauses?

Mr. Rooker: You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when the debate started I raised a point of order. I said that the relevant papers were not before the House. As I understand it, the status of these two Bills is not the same. That is the whole point of the argument.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend will be aware that in the County of Merseyside Bill there is a clause 44 which sets out the byelaws for dealing with processions. It is these byelaws which Merseyside has which give it powers to deal with spontaneous demonstrations and to make exceptions for this, and this feature is not present in the other Bills. I was concerned with the fact that the other Bills have nothing in them to make such exceptions.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. I understand that the byelaws used the expression "as reasonably practicable", but at the moment the wording in the


other Bills is to the effect that no person shall organise or conduct a procession through any street in a district unless notice has been given at least seven days before. But it does not say that no person shall organise or conduct a procession through any street in the district unless seven days before that notice has been given, or unless it would be reasonably impracticable to do so. There is none of that in the common clause, but it is in the byelaws, as I understand it.

Mr. Carlisle: If that be the case, I would certainly support the hon. Member in getting such an amendment to the Cheshire Bill, because it seems reasonable that the words "as reasonably practicable" should be in the Bill. I would certainly support him in pressing for that.

Mr. Rooker: I would support the hon. and learned Member in getting that in the Cheshire Bill, and I presume that he would support me in getting it in the West Midlands Bill. That is a deal between hon. Members. We are all hon. Members—most of us, anyway—in this place.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend is making, and I understand what is worrying many hon. Members. Whether this is the point at which to discuss it, I do not know. My hon. Friend said that the Merseyside Bill was presented a little better than some of the other Bills. A lot of work has been done through Members of Parliament and local authorities on the points at issue. My hon. Friend has made complaints about the trade unions and trades councils not being consulted. Will he tell me whether, when the approach was made to him to discuss this particular matter, he refused to discuss it with the legal adviser of the people concerned?

Mr. Rooker: Is my hon. Friend making a charge or asking a question? I thought that my hon. Friend was implying that I had refused to discuss these Bills. There was no consultation before these Bills were presented to Parliament. Certainly there was no consultation with the Labour Members of Parliament. I cannot, of course, speak for all my colleagues, but as far as I am aware, there was no consultation with Labour Members of Parliament, and certainly none with me. I found out about the Bill almost by

accident. I wrote to the county council asking what was in the Bill and what it was all about. I asked "If it is a consolidation Bill, have I misunderstood it?" The first people to draw to my attention the existence of the Bill were the licensing justices in Birmingham, who were terribly afraid of the changes in the West Midlands Bill.

Mr. Crawshaw: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. Of course, until the Bill was presented we did not know the things to which we would object. It was after the Bill appeared that we knew the matters to which we would be objecting. After it had appeared, was not my hon. Friend approached by one of the legal advisers of the promoters, on a personal basis, and did not my hon. Friend refuse to discuss the matter? I am only asking a question. I could be wrong.

Mr. Rooker: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to a conversation which took place in the Lobby a week ago, after I had made an oral objection. At that point we were not even expecting a debate, and the matter was then in the hands of my right hon. Friend, the Deputy Chief Whip.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household): In reference to this matter, may I point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I had full consultations with the West Yorkshire county council back in 1977? When any hon. Member on either side of the House raised the matter with me I had consultation with that Member. The West Yorkshire county council has acted in a first-class manner in every way, and I have had full consultation. When anyone refers to the Deputy Chief Whip or to anyone else, let it be understood that I have had full consultation with everyone concerned.

Mr. Rooker: The position is that, in the last week of the Session, I was objecting orally, and there was still confusion about the procedure that was used. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) asked me whether I had refused to have consultations. He seems to be referring to a chance remark from one of the promoters when he left the Box after I had shouted "Object" last week. I do not consider


that to be a refusal this late in the Session, when we are so close to the end and when we are talking about a carryover motion. I am not talking about the substance of the Bill or consultation about it. I have been in correspondence with the West Midlands county council about the Bill on behalf of the Boys' Brigade, the licensing justices, and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. I got no change out of it. We shall still have a battle over the licensing clauses.
Even for private business it ill behoves local authorities to come here with Bills consisting of more than 100 pages without prior consultation even on the substance of the Bill. That may have happened in the past and it may be part of the history of this place, but I was sent here to change a few things that happen here. I think that a little more consultation by promoters, who obviously tell local authorities, "You pay a fee and you get your Bill," would be in order. It is not like that. When certain issues are being raised, I have no confidence in local government to protect the liberty of the individual. That responsibility rests with this House.
If any reasonable approach could have been expected, we should have seen it by now. Cheshire would have made the same decision as Merseyside, instead of issuing the misleading letter to its members, which said on page 2:
It does not govern spontaneous demonstrations or people assembling to protest at for example, County Hall.
It covers them if they are marching to County Hall: that is the point at issue.
That is a totally misleading statement in a letter to hon. Members on the basis of which they are expected to make a decision if it comes to a vote. I have not said whether I will vote. I should like the opportunity to distinguish between the Cheshire Bill and the Merseyside Bill. There has clearly been a meeting of minds on the Merseyside Bill, but not on the Cheshire Bill or the West Midlands Bill.
This small fraction of parliamentary time will have served to give notice to those outside the House, who we know are not really present, that they are in for a rough ride from the TUC and Labour Members, including Ministers,

when these Bills come to the House in future. They will be in for an even rougher ride from the teetotal lobby in this House, combined with the lawyers who I hope will vote to throw out the changes in the licensing laws.
I do not want to spend much time on those changes, because I shall have enough opportunity, and material, during the later stages of the Bill, which will undoubtedly take a long time, in the next Session.
If Back Benchers are of a mind to do so, they can have a field day on Private Business. We have done so on several Bills which have raised matters not to our liking or to that of our constituents. In the final analysis, it is the responsibility of elected Members to protect the rights of their constituents in civil liberty matters. It is not something that I am prepared to sub-contract to any promoter, any local government lackey or any Toni, Dick or Harry. No way will I sub-contract that responsibility. It belongs here and I will take all the powers I have next Session to ensure that the matter is settled here in this Chamber.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: My hon. Friends the Members for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) have made their objections absolutely clear. Some of those objections are shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and perhaps by other hon. Members. What frightened me about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr was his threat of action, apparently, by teetotal lawyers—if we could ever find any. Such a breed would put fear into the heart of anyone.
I have no authority to speak for the County of Merseyside Bill or for any other Bill, but, as has been said, we seem to have had better consultation on Merseyside than has: been the case in other areas—perhaps in West Yorkshire.

Mr. Walter Harrison: West Yorkshire has been marvellous.

Mr. Ogden: My right hon. Friend says that West Yorkshire has been marvellous. Merseyside has not been too bad either, although it would be an advantage if sometimes county councils and


other authorities could say "We have a problem. How do you think we should go about it?" We could then sort the matter out from there. But that is a question of degree. Let us see what we can agree, rather than concentrate on what we disagree.
We can start relatively easily. I would thank the Chairman of Ways and Means for moving the Resolution and for having been here throughout the debate—which has not always happened in these cases.
Let us try to establish the facts as of this moment. This resolution informs the House, as if we did not know, that four county council Bills have been going through the House of Lords over the past months. The question has been raised whether proper opportunity has been given to everybody for proper objections in the other place. Some people maintain that they did not have the opportunity to object. If they did not, that is regrettable, but we have no control over the House of Lords in that.
Our aim should be to ensure that, if and when we get the Bill through to the Commons, it is given every examination and that better possibilities of objecting are made available than was given in the other place.

Mr. Flannery: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that some of my hon. Friends had consultation on, and knew about, this clause but did not object to it?

Mr. Ogden: There are hon. Members representing Merseyside constituencies who take different views about the clause. Some Members object, others find the clause acceptable. Each Member has made his point of view clear to the county council. My hon. Friends the Members for Garston, for Walton and for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), have wrung a great many concessions about the county council about proposed amendments to the Bill. In the Merseyside Bill there are 165 clauses and five schedules. Perhaps 15 of those raised interest and objections in Merseyside, and 12 of them were changed during the proceedings in the Lords, with the local objections being met. There are one or two outstanding ones, especially clause 43 of the Merseyside Bill, dealing with processions, which

has attracted the attention of people in Merseyside, and outside Merseyside.

Mr. Loyden: As a matter of fact, I raised this with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) at the time. When the Merseyside county was made aware of the Bill in the general sense, we were inundated with letters from the Girl Guides, the Boy Scouts, the trade union movement, and so on, and we made it clear to the county authority that pressures were being brought to bear on us about the clause.

Mr. Ogden: The Salvation Army was also worried about it. However, the county council responded in a way which suggested that charitable organisations would be exempted from the provisions in the clause. It may be that trade unions and similar organisations will also be exempted. I am saying that representations were made to us by our constituents. They were passed to the county authorities and pressed upon them, and changes have already been made. If and when the Bill conies again to the Commons, those changes will continue to be pressed and to be made.
However, at this moment we have the four Bills as they are. They represent four different geographical areas where the needs and the responsibilities are different from area to area. There is much in common in the Bills. But there are differences in the Bills because, although the areas have much in common, there are also differences.
All that we ask tonight is that, having had our say, we should not throw out what has been in preparation for 18 months on Merseyside.
First under a Labour-controlled county council, preparation of the Bill began with some district councils Labour-controlled and others Conservative-controlled. Then the control of the county changed, and the Bill was progressed through the other place by a Conservative-controlled county council, with the full knowledge and support of the leader of the Labour group County Councillor Stuart Cole, and his colleagues on Merseyside county council. It is not party political in that sense, but joint-party.
I cannot speak for other areas because I have little direct knowledge of them or their Bills. I have no doubt that much


the same applies to the other three Bills, with different areas requiring different local treatment, and there ought to be every opportunity for amendments and changes to be made as the Bills progress through their various stages.
Last night, I was confronted with a situation where there was a motion on the Order Paper asking that we should continue with all these Bills or have none of them. In other words, 18 months of work, money and talent were suddenly at risk. We have to decide whether all that should be wasted, making it necessary for the whole process to start all over again.
It is not a case of whether the county councils could spend money on these Bills or on schools, roads or better nurseries. These Bills are promoted as a result of the responsibilities placed on the county councils by this national Parliament. This is not an empire-building exercise on the part of the local authorities. Local government was reorganised. The powers have to be renewed by 1979. We in Parliament have told the county councils that they have to renew their powers. They are doing this in response to national legislation and not in an attempt to increase local legislation. It is not a question of having this Bill or something else which is more desirable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North made the assumption that perhaps Merseyside was being a little stroppy and that possibly Cheshire was being obdurate. He said that West Yorkshire was "happy" to have given an assurance that it would seek to withdraw the clauses to which my hon. Friend objects in return for the passing of its Bill. However, nowhere in the correspondence with Yorkshire will my hon. Friend find the word "happy". The authority recognised that if it wanted its Bill, it would have to give something in return.
Let no one complain that an hon. Member uses the procedures of the House to exert a point of view. As the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) said, it is done, and he should know.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It was unfair to use the word "happy", but the concession will probably cut down the council's costs considerably, whereas if the

other authorities insist on our dragging it out through all the stages in the House it will cost a great deal of money.

Mr. Ogden: That should be borne in mind, but I take a simplistic view as regards county council Bills. The procedure has been custom and practice for a long time, and custom and practice are very important on the Labour Benches.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North wants something from his county council or is opposed to something from it, I shall support him, but let him keep out of Merseyside. Let the Merseyside Members decide what should happen there. It was a simple way that seemed to work very well. It has advantages and disadvantages.

Mr. Walter Harrison: What about devolution?

Mr. Ogden: We had to be whipped, and I voted against Third Reading.
There have been objections in the case of these Bills, and they have implications for every other Bill. I am saying that there is a chance of carrying the matter through into the next Session without going through all the procedures again. There would have to be Second Readings. Someone would have to be found to move them. It would not be the Chairman of Ways and Means. That is one duty he does not have to undertake.
Let the case be argued. Let us have our say on each of the four Bills and consider them properly, line by line, clause by clause, amending and subtracting. The kind of pressure we have been able to exert on Merseyside should be able to be received properly by the West Midlands. That should be the kind of relationship between a Member of Parliament and his constituency. There should be some response. Some moves have been made and we should support them.
We have some rough Tories on Merseyside, but they are perhaps more practical. It has been possible to reach agreement.
I keep out of West Yorkshire. There is a story told by Joe Gormley that we Lancastrians marched up our side of the Pennines, got to the top of the hills, took a good look over the top, did not like what we saw, said "Yuk", and came


back, leaving it to the Yorkshire people. That is why Yorkshire is not Lancastrian. We leave Yorkshire to sort out its own problems, but of course we now help one another.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip, because he has done tremendous work in trying to get wide agreement on this Resolution over the past weeks and months.
The Resolution should be supported. These four Bills should come back. They have undergone considerable examination Time, talent and money have been expended. Let the House give the Bills a carry-over motion and let the examination begin properly, line by line, clause by clause, when we return next Session.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

EMPLOYMENT (LONDON)

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: We are now to discuss matters affecting London, its problems, needs and aspirations. I hope that by the time we finish tonight we shall have shown everyone that in London there are problems that must be seriously examined. I hope that in addition we shall have got rid of the mythology that all our colleagues in the Midlands, the north-east and the north-west form one massive group who are all in harmony. My constituents should have been here tonight for the previous debate. I have never come across so much back-biting, rowing and fighting in my life.
The Evening News is always very anxious to show our provincial colleagues as paragons of virtue. I see that that newspaper's reporters are not present for the debate, but no doubt they will write about it tomorrow. If they had been here they would have seen that London Members have a far better record of working together than our provincial colleagues appear to have.
I should like to deal with a number of factors covered by the subject I have chosen for debate. I begin with die question of the population of London. An argument goes on, but I do not believe that there is much information on the subject. There is little doubt that the population is decreasing in London. We have lost about 1 million people since the peak years. Our major problem is that it has not been a balanced fall. We are left with a residual population which needs more help and therefore demands more resources. It is interesting to note that in 1971 16 per cent. of the population of London were elderly. Now, by 1976, 18 per cent. of the population is elderly. That means that a far greater


amount of resources has to be devoted to the needs of the elderly in London.
We have a greater influx of one-parent families. For example, just over 10 per cent. of all the households in Islington, Hackney and Tower Hamlets are in receipt of supplementary benefit. That gives a good idea of the problems being faced by those living in these areas. A recent study undertaken by the DHSS, using its 23 indices of social deprivation, places eight inner London boroughs among the 10 most deprived administrative areas in England. The study also listed a further six London boroughs with similar problems, although on a smaller scale.
Those eight boroughs contain 4·2 per cent. of the population of England—1,766,000 people. That is greater than the total population of Merseyside, about which we have been hearing so much for the past two hours. There is a greater population in those boroughs than in the whole of Merseyside. That is clear evidence that London is a special case and cannot be lumped together with Merseyside or anywhere else.
We have had difficulties with jobs. There is the mythology that London is paved with gold, that everybody has a job, that our unemployment rate is next to nothing, and that there are no problems. That is absolutely untrue and has been for a long time. But it does not matter how often we repeat it, the mythology is still brought out. I will have another go tonight. I hope that a large number of my colleagues will take part in the debate and that as a result the position will be understood.
The persistent unemployment in London's inner areas is well above the national average. There has been a massive job loss over the years. We are continually pointing out that the number of manufacturing jobs fell from about 1½million in 1961 to about 800,000 in 1976. That is an enormous change in a short period. The rate of fall is about three times that of the average in England and Wales. That is vitally serious when taken into account with the other factors. The problem may be compared with those in the most severely depressed development areas.
It is interesting to realise that there are more jobless people in the GLC area than there are in the whole of Scotland.

That is a statement worth repeating. If it is thought that I am being ungenerous. I add that there are twice as many unemployed people in the GLC area as there are in Wales. These unemployed people are concentrated in the eight inner London boroughs. The most severely affected areas in London have, I am told, 81,000 people unemployed compared with 46,000 for the whole of Glasgow. That is worth repeating for the benefit of Mr. Deputy Speaker. London has 81,000 people unemployed in the most severely affected employment exchange areas whereas there are only 46,000 unemployed in the whole of Glasgow. Both London and Glasgow have four exchange areas with more than 10 per cent. unemployed.
It is interesting to note that, on the other hand, Furness, which is a development area, had an unemployment rate of 5·9 per cent. in October 1977—less than the national average of 6·3 per cent. Yet it is a development area. It is worth recalling also that since 1970 the regional aid given to such areas as Furness has amounted to £1,627 million and at present is running at about £500 million a year. But London has not had a brass farthing of that money. One has to add to it the EEC regional fund since 1973, the benefit of which has gone to the very same areas that have carved up this huge amount of money. Yet London has not received a brass farthing from the EEC either.
We have a similar problem with housing. The number of households in Greater London has remained stable at about 2·6 million. Thus, the decrease in the population has not reduced the pressure on housing as one might have thought. By the end of 1976, inner London had 3·1 homeless households per thousand resident households compared with 1·7 per thousand in outer London. That again demonstrates the enormous pressure which the London boroughs are having to suffer. Their housing waiting lists are as long as ever, aggregating at about 200,000 people.
I want to pay great tribute to the Government, who have struggled so hard for the past four years to redress some of our grievances. Through various agencies such as the partnership schemes, the new Inner Urban Areas Act and various other inner urban area aids, the Government have tried tremendously hard to get to


grips with London's problems. I believe that this Government will go down in history as having put a great deal of effort into redressing the problems of London, the first time that a Government have made such efforts. But, of course, our problem now is that it has all come a little too late, in the sense that we have a Tory-controlled GLC which does not seem to want to do anything. Its basic attitude, it seems, is to want to opt out of society. Apparently, it does not want to do anything.
I understand that the GLC runs its affairs at County Hall by press release. I keep in touch with the Evening News, which apparently is on the GLC's payroll. I understand that it wants to have nothing to do with housing or planning or transport because they are supposed to be someone else's problems. It seems that the GLC merely wants to be a bank lending and borrowing money on behalf of people and agencies. Yet I understood that the strategic control of housing, transport and planning was the reason for the GLC being brought into existence.
That brings me to that silly document, the so-called Marshall report. I recall with some interest that in 1962, when I was engaged in local government in London, I argued against the Herbert Commission report. I tried to draw attention to the ridiculousness of the structure for the GLC that was being proposed, the whole absurdity of it and the problems that it would raise.
At the 1962 conference in Belfast of the Association of Municipal Corporations I argued on behalf of my local authority against the concepts of reorganisation proposed by the then Tory Government. I was opposed by a man called Frank Marshall. He argued that it was a great idea and that he could not think of a better one. He committed himself to that ridiculous reorganisation. I began by telling him to mind his own business. I did not think that Leeds had any locus to tell us in London what sort of reorganisation should take place in London. I did not want him to tell me the sort of second tier that I wanted in London, because I did not want one. I thought that the borough is the most important part, and therefore I told him to leave matters alone and go home. In the event, he and his colleagues did not. They were supporting their Government.

They are all dyed-in-the-wool Tories. I understand that, but they were interfering in London, and my authority came out of the AMC in that year as a sanction against the attitude of the Frank Marshalls of the world.
I read Frank Marshall's report with some interest, because 16 years later he suddenly appears to believe that much of what I was saying in 1962 was about right. The man who was so much in favour of it and would not mind his own business is now brought to London to try to go back those 16 years and start from the beginning. Therefore, it comes very hard to listen to such a chump who 16 years later wants to prove only how wrong he was all those years before. To those who try to tell me that we need to listen to Frank Marshall my answer is that I need to listen to him as much as I want the plague. I do not want his advice.
It is not surprising that the GLC Tories employ him, because they seem to be running the council in the oddest way. As I understand it from my Labour colleagues there, it is the demise of local government democracy. Every attempt is made to make sure that matters are not discussed. They are almost instant decision makers. One would not mind that if the decisions were in the interests of London and of Londoners in the way that I have been describing they are needed. But they do not decision-make in that way. They are making decisions not to make decisions that will have to come to the council to be discussed. This is a total negation of local government, and therefore when so much is not being scrutinised in the way that it should be it is not surprising that London is not getting the benefit that it ought to get and would get if a dynamic party were in power at County Hall.
The council can decide to spend £250,000 on putting ratepayers' money into the pockets of the advertising media, but apparently it cannot decide to spend £250,000 on cleaning up derelict sites which it owns in my constituency. There are 22 such sites, and the council could clean them up at any time that it liked. If the council did not have the money to do that I could understand it, but it can apparently spend £250,000 on publicity. If the council pleaded poverty and said that it would not possibly do what I am


suggesting, I could understand that. I should reject its reply, but I should understand it. But it does not say that. It has money rolling out of its ears and yet it is not prepared to do the important things that it ought to be doing to get rid of the dreadful eyesores in my constituency.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will the hon. Gentleman say what the Labour Greater London Council did about those derelict sites while it was in charge of London?

Mr. Brown: I rather expected the hon. Gentleman to say that. I thought I helped him on his way. I said that the council is not claiming that it does not have the money. It has the money that has been given to it by the Labour Government. What I referred to was the figure of £250,000 which the council is spending on publicity for the purpose of selling houses. All I am saying is that as the council is responsible for the derelict sites in my constituency its first priority should be to take account of those disgusting sites. That is its duty, but it has abrogated it. In deciding to get rid of nice little houses with gardens, and at the same time to leave my constituency in the appalling condition that one finds there, the council is acting disgracefully, and is not helping us one bit. I have a situation which I have to protect.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: It is the wrong place.

Mr. Brown: It may be the wrong place, but the hon. Gentleman may not be with us the next time and it will be the right place. What I have to protect is the situation that in my constituency I have nearly all flats and no council houses with gardens. Therefore, I am left in the position that if this wretched organisation at County Hall gets its way, a housing Colditz will be formed in my constituency. Once one is in, one will never get out. What the Tory administration at County Hall is currently engaged upon is an attempt to get an escape route blocked, because at present, by being able to apply for transfers into other areas, my constituents have an opportunity of enjoying some of the desirable areas which have GLC houses with gardens. Some of them are in the area of the hon. Member for Chingford

(Mr. Tebbit). But the pursuit of this idea means that my constituents will not be able to move out. The important object of this debate is to make it quite clear exactly what the Tory GLC is getting up to.
There is another interesting factor which prompts me to make my protest about this situation. Only last week I was asked whether I knew that there were 200 empty flats in my area. I said "Well, that is a disgrace in itself. Why don't you let them?" I was told "We cannot. They are difficult to let". This is now a euphemism which is used. We used to call such places dirty, filthy hovels, but now they are termed "difficult to let". I asked "Why are they difficult to let? Why are they such that decent, nice people find them appalling and will not take them?" The answer is that no money has been spent on them. The GLC is doing the minimum amount of work, as a result of which it can now give weight to touting around in order to find people to come into my constituency and live in these wretched places which ought to be pulled down and rebuilt to modern standards.

Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether this is also a problem which has arisen only in the past 18 months. What did the hon. Gentleman do to try to persuade his friends in the former Labour administration at County Hall to do something about it?

Mr. Brown: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I tried very hard. Basically, those dwellings should never have been built, but we know how mean the Tories were in about 1928. They built the most appalling stuff. They actually put baths in the kitchens because they felt that that was as far as they had to go. They built the most appalling housing because they were building what they called houses for the working classes. We still have not got rid of those dwellings. I continually harassed the then Labour LCC and the Labour GLC about these places. But the significance, which the hon. Gentleman still cannot grasp, between the last four years and any previous four-year period is that today's Labour Government have provided considerable funds to the GLC, and also to the London boroughs, in order to do something about this matter.
My complaint about the Tory GLC is that it is not spending the money wisely. It is not doing the jobs which it ought to be doing. It is spending too much of its time plotting merely to stop my constituents from being able to transfer to accommodation which is more suitable to their needs.
The hon. Member for Chingford stopped me at the right point when he asked me about those wretched blocks of flats which were built by his colleagues in those days. The only thing which was missing was the old Tory workhouse slogan stating "Give up hope all ye who enter here". The present Tory GLC is again trying to introduce that concept in inner London.
I hope that my colleagues will develop more examples in regard to London. In opening the debate I hope that I have done enough to justify my request to the Government that now the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies are to be set up there can no longer be justification for Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees and Scottish and Welsh Question Times. Undoubtedly all those subjects which would have been discussed in the Grand Committees and at Question Time will now be dealt with by the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies.
The problems of London are very much greater than ever were the problems in Scotland or Wales. I have sought this week to persuade my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to provide for London a Grand Committee covering the 92 constituencies of Greater London and also to give London a Question Time to enable us to press much more forcefully the many issues which we should be discussing with Governments of all political persuasions so that we may do the best we can for London. I hope that my right hon. Friend will review the reply which he gave to me yesterday which indicated that he was leaving the matter to somebody else.
I also urge the Government to ensure that inner London is declared a development area.

Mr. Michael English: It is the Cinderella of the lot.

Mr. Brown: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) was asleep.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may be that most of us did not catch the wise words uttered from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). We would appreciate it if he repeated what he said.

Mr. English: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I have no desire to hear what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Brown: I am anxious to have London determined as a development area.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am aware that this city in which we are now debating has rather more seats than it is entitled to have. It has, I believe—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Since the hon. Member appears to be developing a speech, may I inform him that he rose on a point of order? What is his point of order?

Mr. English: I was referred to and my point of order is simple.

Mr. Robert Mellish: Sit down, Michael.

Mr. English: My London colleagues do not wish me to say it, but—this is true of civil servants or anybody else—the average worker in London is paid more for the work he does than anybody else in the country.

Mr. Brown: I do not wish to take up my colleague's view on that topic, but he can discuss it with me outside if he wishes. We can discuss the advantages or disadvantages.

Mr. English: They get more money.

Mr. Brown: We can discuss the matter. Furthermore, in the discussions on rate support grant for the coming year I hope that the Government will stand firm on the fact that London has been deprived of its rightful share of rate support grant over a very long period. Although we have always agreed that we could not accept that London should have its total entitlement, the present claw-back is a little harsh in view of the number of problems which London is facing.


London is losing many hundreds of millions of pounds which are rightly its own within the rate support grant. Therefore, we have a right to ask the Government to stand firm in the future to make sure that we receive the amount of money that is rightly due to us.

Mr. English: Rubbish.

Mr. Brown: I wish to inform the Conservative administration at County Hall that it will help if it buckles down to the job of spending wisely the money it is obtaining from the Government, or will get out and hand over the job to those who can carry it out. We have had enough gimmickry. We are looking for action from County Hall. That is the very thing that we are not having. London needs so much urgently—factories, jobs, decent homes, schools, hospitals and a whole new emphasis on the quality of life. Those are the entitlements of the people of London. Londoners are as entitled to them as people in the rest of the country.
I hope that at the end of the debate we shall have highlighted the fact that the only Government who have taken to heart our problems have been the present Labour Government. I hope that we can look forward to their continuation in office.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: It is refreshing to have the presence of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) during one of our London debates. Something that has been missing in all our London debates hitherto has been the hon. Gentleman's gay and lively wit. I am glad that we now have that with us.
I was surprised that 21 Labour Members put down their names for the Consolidated Fund debate on London. I begin to wonder why they did so.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: And where they are.

Mr. Baker: Certainly. There are not 21 Labour Members present now. I see only nine Labour Members.
Why did they ask for a debate on unemployment in London? Could it be that it is an election year and that the smell of the hustings is in the air?

Did they want to demonstrate that a Labour Government have done well in curbing unemployment? If that was their Intention, they could not have chosen a worse subject. During the past four years of the Labour Government we have seen the highest levels of unemployment in Greater London since the war. That is the achievement of four years of Labour Government. The rate of growth of unemployment in London is faster than the national average rate of growth.
I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) did not speak for long about unemployment in London. We had a tirade about the housing policies of the GLC, tower blocks and the inhumanity of the large council estates that are so common in many parts of London, but we did not have much about unemployment.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we do not discuss London matters often enough in the House. A proposal that I believe would have support on both sides of the House is to start our Friday morning sittings at least once a month with an hour's Question Time on London matters. That proposal was put forward by some of my colleagues and myself about a year ago. As the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said, Scotland gets a fair crack of the whip at the time of the House, as does Wales.

Mr. Cormack: And Northern Ireland.

Mr. Baker: Northern Ireland gets much more than a fair a crack of the whip. There are special reasons for that. At present there is not a local tier of government in Ulster.
London Members do not have enough time on the Floor of the House.

Mr. John Hunt: I applaud and support the suggestion of London Questions. Is my hon. Friend prepared to go a step further and say that if we are to have a London Question Time we should have a Minister for London to answer such Questions? It is needed.

Mr. Baker: In the experimental stage, I think that it would be better to have the attendance of Ministers from the various Departments to which the Questions relate—for example, transport, housing, rates and employment. These are


the responsibilities of several Departments. I believe that it is premature to talk about a Minister for London.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said that we should have a London Grand Committee. That may be a useful experiment. I am a member of the Scottish Grand Committee. I am assiduously whipped not to attend. If we have a London Grand Committee, will the hon. Member for Nottingham, West attend? Will those responsible ensure that he does not attend, at least not at this late hour?
I turn to the subject of the debate—namely, employment in London. The figures are disgraceful and shattering. When the Government took office, the level of male unemployment in London was 2£B7;4 per cent. It is now 7£B7;5 per cent. That is higher than the general level for the United Kingdom. It has risen at a more rapid rate than national unemployment.
The level of unemployment in St. Marylebone has gone up from 1£B7;8 per cent. to 7£B7;9 per cent. The number of men out of work in my constituency is nearly 6,000. That is almost the highest figure for any labour exchange in London. That number is exceeded in only one other labour exchange—Brixton. That is a grim and depressing picture.
We all know that the drop in jobs has been due particularly to a decline in manufacturing industry in London. The reasons have been well debated on other occasions. There has been the closure of small firms through planning relocation. It has been too much of a hassle for them to try to move, so they have closed down. The loss of jobs through development in central London has been enormous. Another factor has been the costs of keeping businesses going—higher rates and rents and costs of operation in the centre of the city.
London has suffered from the generally inimical attitude of planners in the recent past: the belief that industry must be tidied away on to estates on the edges of towns and taken away from the very places where small firms grew up—for example, a garage on the corner of a street. That tidying up was the planners' contribution to the economic death of London. I hope that those attitudes have

now changed. They have certainly changed in the centre of London.
Many people say that the death of dockland has dominated London. The decline of dockland is a significant element. But, looking at the latest figures and adding up the labour exchanges north and south of the river in dockland, we find that the number of male unemployed, at a generous estimate, adding in some of the outer fringes of dockland, is about 15,000. If we take inner north-west, as it is called, which covers Camden Town, Fulham, Hammersmith and St. Marylebone, there are 21,000 unemployed. The significance of those two figures is that, although the decline of dockland is important and very significant, there are fewer unemployed in dockland areas than in the four areas to which I have just referred.
I hope that people will not believe that a simpliste answer to deal with the problem of London is somehow to regenerate dockland. That is not so. St. Marylebone has a higher number of unemployed apart from Brixton, but no Minister has offered the unemployed in St. Marylebone and central London £35 million or job subsidies of that kind.

Mr. John Tilley: Brixton has the highest number of unemployed.

Mr. Baker: I agree that Brixton has the highest level of unemployed. That disguises a high level of unemployed young coloured boys—another grave problem in London.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Gentleman mentioned dockland, half of which is in my constituency. Is he not basing his argument on the wrong figures? He mentioned current unemployment. It is estimated that there are now 20,000 fewer jobs in my constituency than there were just over 10 years ago? Does not that point to the importance of the rundown of dockland?

Mr. Baker: I accept that point entirely. Some of the factors to which I referred earlier have also contributed to the rundown of jobs.
The attitudes of successive Ministers have not been helpful in this matter. In other debates on London the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) accepted some responsibility for the


wooden thinking in Government Departments in the mid-1960s. A Labour Government introduced planning laws and office development permits to push work out of London. That policy, which has not been totally stopped, should be stopped. I do not believe that we need office development permits at all. London needs to act as a magnet to pull in jobs. However, the thinking in the mid-1960s positively drove firms out of London.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said that the Conservative GLC was doing nothing about this problem and that a Labour administration was needed at County Hall, but a conference on unemployment was summoned two months ago by the Conservative-controlled GLC. It was called the London Employment Forum and I have with me the document that emanated from that conference. I cannot recall being invited to a conference at County Hall on the problems of unemployment in London when Labour was last in control of the GLC. I had endless invitations to attend conferences on problems concerning canals, housing and transport, but the recent conference was the first GLC initiative on unemployment matters—and it was taken by the Conservative-controlled council under Mr. Cutler and Mr. Brew. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch was wise to keep off unemployment because Labour's record at County Hall is abysmal and appalling.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is trying to claim, but many of us have been attending industrial forums in London for the past five or six years. They have been taking place in Hackney for a very long time and in Wandsworth. The GLC was trying to get in on the act. It has been of no use because the document that the hon. Gentleman has will be of no use and he knows it.

Mr. Baker: There have been local conferences on unemployment. I have attended and initiated such conferences in Westminster and St. Marylebone, but I cannot recall being invited by a Labour GLC to a conference on the problems of unemployment in London.

Mr. Tebbit: To be fair to the Labour GLC. it should be pointed out that there

has never before been such high unemployment in London. I understand that Labour's slogan at the next election will be "All except 1·55 million back to work with Labour" It is only when we get a Labour Government increasing unemployment that such conferences become necessary. Perhaps that is why they have not been held in the past.

Mr. Baker: I welcome such a fair intervention. My hon. Friend is right in emphasising time and again the point that we shall be making, especially if this is election year. Labour has driven up the levels of unemployment in London.
Let us be positive and consider where we can see an end to this rising level of unemployment. We have to do two things. First, there must be a positive change of attitude among planners, both centrally and locally. There should be a positive attempt by the Government to ease planning controls on commercial and industrial development in the centre of London. They should try to create a climate that will get firms wanting to develop in these areas without feeling that an avalanche of planners will descend on them to deal with fire regulations, stairways and so on.
This will not come about merely through pious declarations. It will require a positive act of the Government to try to ease planning controls. I am not so naive or crude as to say that we should abolish these controls, but there must be a definite effort by the Government to make the environment more attractive to firms to establish, develop and expand.

Mr. English: Just in London?

Mr. Baker: My words of wisdom apply to Nottingham as well. I shall be pleased to campaign in all those marginal seats in Nottingham to make sure that Conservative Members are returned in as many as possible.
The second thing we need to do is to encourage the growth of small businesses in our inner cities.

Mr. English: Just in London?

Mr. Baker: There is no doubt that the large companies will not be the big job creators in the next five or 10 years. The small businesses will be putting on jobs.


The Government stumbled upon this fact about a year ago. They appointed a Minister to deal with small businesses, but one could be forgiven for not knowing who he was. It was a well-kept secret until the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was appointed and a new impetus was given to the development of small businesses. This is only a beginning. We shall get job creation only through small businesses.
Let me remind the House again of the successful enterprise called Clerkenwell Workshops. Out of an old Victorian warehouse in Clerkenwell, which no one wanted at all, this group has created a place in which 350 people are now employed. This operation has been carried out by a handful of people. Very creatively, they took over this big warehouse and divided it up roughly with breeze-blocks into smaller units, rented out at £2 per square foot. The biggest problem encountered was the planners, who said that there must be fire escapes here and fire doors there. It was an absolute misery.
That operation has created more jobs in Clerkenwell than the whole of the Manpower Services Commission has created in Clerkenwell. That is the scale and the difference of the operation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): As the example that the hon. Member has given is within the London borough of Islington, part of which I represent, I hope that lie will pay tribute to the Labour council there, without which this operation would not have been able to go ahead. Perhaps I may also point out—I am sure that the hon. Member will correct me if I am wrong—that to the best of my recollection a good deal of Government money was involved.

Mr. Baker: First, no Government money was involved at all. Secondly, I would feel a bit more enthusiastic about the London borough of Islington if it had not, six months ago, slapped a compulsory purchase order upon Clerkenwell Workshops—to buy it, to bulldoze it down and to build another tower block. Thank heavens that the London borough of Islington came to its sense. As Clerkenwell Workshops is not in my constituency, I wrote to the hon. Member concerned saying that that was an absurd and daft proposal.
This group is now expanding and doing work. It is a non-profit-making group. It is doing a big operation in Camden on the granary site. I am hoping to encourage it to find a site in Westminster or St. Marylebone, although sites there are more difficult to find.
However, it is that sort of operation that is typical of how London really started. London did not start with planners and all that. It started with little men setting up their businesses and creating economic activity, which generated the need for housing and more businesses. If the economic life of our capital is to be regenerated, that is the only way in which it will be done.

Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that the lesson here is that one does not have to demolish in order to expand?

Mr. Baker: That is absolutely right. That is the view that I take. Large parts of East London are full of old Victorian buildings which are standing empty.
I am glad that we have had this opportunity to debate the problems of employment in London. I am sure that when Londoners come to read this debate and see the proposals being put forward from the Opposition Benches, they will come to only one conclusion—that if the economic activity of our capital is to be regenerated, it will be done only under a Conservative Government.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Robert Mellish: I should like to tell the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) that, by and large, I, too, am contemptuous of planners, and I have been so especially over the last few years. However, I do not think that he ought to take the matter as far back as he did, when we had the happy days of no planners at all, and say that somehow London was a wonderful city.
One does not have to turn back the clock very far—though it is a little beyond my lifetime—to the turn of the century to picture a London that was absolutely squalid and disgraceful and of which I would think not even modern-day Tories would be very proud. The most appalling slums were built in the heart of an industrial area. That created, at the turn of the century, a job for all local authorities, whether they were Tory, Labour or


Liberal, in trying to clear up an appalling mess. Planning, therefore, was right.
I speak with some pride of a local authority which has a record that is second to none in London in dealing with the terrifying lack of planning of yesteryear, when the slums were all intermixed with the industrial areas. Densities were 860 to 900 persons to the acre. One toilet was used by five families, as was one tap.
In my lifetime I have seen those slums cleared. I look back with pride upon what was achieved by the sort of local authority with which I am proud to be associated. Therefore, I do not agree with the hon. Member in regard to the planners of yesteryear, but I am a little sick of the planners of the last 20 years, under Labour and Conservative Governments.
It is interesting that we do not have present the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). There is a great authority on London, if ever there was one. He is a bright bird. He is now writing articles for the Evening News explaining what ought to be done. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will confirm that in the past four years there have been about half a dozen debates on London, and I have taken part in all of them. So have many Conservative Members. I cannot recall ever seeing the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds here for a London debate. He is, of course, the Police Federation representative, so perhaps he has been busying himself on that, but he has not done too well there, has he?
I find it a little impertinent that what was a great evening newspaper, the Evening News, should have to employ a non-London Member to tell us how to solve our problems. We see the sad change of attitude that has come to what has always been a fine London newspaper when it stoops to that level. I have nothing but contempt for the Evening News both for the policies it has been following for some time and for the fact that it employs a man like the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to write about London. Let us hope that it gives some publicity to this debate, but if I know the Evening News it will probably say that the matter was not even discussed, that London yet again was ignored.
Having made those remarks about the Evening News, for which I have contempt, and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, let me turn to the guts of this issue.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mellish: Will this be an intelligent intervention?

Mr. Finsberg: The right hon. Gentleman is the last one to judge that. I merely want to ask whether, in accordance with the courtesies of the House, the right hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) that he intended to make a personal attack upon him.

Mr. Mellish: I did not do so because I thought that since the hon. Member was such a great expert on London he would be here tonight. Anyone can write the sort of rubbish that he has been writing. I would have thought not only that he would have been here, but that he would have been on the Opposition Front Bench. After all, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) is working hard to get a position in the next Conservative Government, if his party ever forms one.
I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for St. Marylebone said. The exodus from London over the last 10 or 15 years has been appalling. Conservative and Labour Governments have had a hand in it. Let us therefore have no party political wrangle about that. The Tory Government did it from 1970 to 1974 and the Labour Government did it before that. We did it because Whitehall planners said that London was bloated, that it had too much industry and fat, and that our friends in the north and particularly in Scotland had to be helped. No capital city has ever been more generous to its regions than London was in sending its resources and people to help the north and Scotland. We did that repeatedly.
I admit—and I have said it before—that I was guilty of supporting that policy of yesteryear. I believed what the planners said, that London's industry had to be taken away. I remember pleading with a firm in my constituency, which employed 400 of my constituents, to set up business in the north—

Mr. Cormack: rose—

Mr. Mellish: Will the hon. Gentleman wait just one minute and sit down and be quiet? There was I, a Member of Parliament pleading with his constituents to leave their borough and go into new homes and a new factory provided in a different part of the country under the policies of the Government of the day—

Mr. Cormack: rose—

Mr. Mellish: I shall give way, but this had better be good.

Mr. Cormack: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most unfortunate symbolic decisions was taken by the Prime Minister, when he held a different position, to send the Royal Mint to Llantrisant?

Mr. Mellish: I have news for the hon. Gentleman. I have yet to deal with decisions that have still to be implemented. If he will sit and be patient and listen to a very good speech, he will do all right.
The exodus from London was carried out at the behest of Whitehall planners who were a disaster. I name one of them —the great Professor James at the Ministry of Housing, as it then was. So brilliant was he that he got a chair at some university or other. It was he who produced the plans and figures showing that what he called the south-eastern region was so bloated that unless something was done London would explode. He said that therefore the jobs had to go, and I was one of those silly enough to believe him. He was wrong then and he is wrong now. The process was a disaster because it went much too far. We now have to recover from that. But I advise the hon. Members for St. Marylebone and Hampstead not to try making a party political issue of that.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Tell that to your hon. Friends.

Mr. Mellish: I am telling the hon. Gentleman, if he is listening. From 1970 to 1974 the Conservative Government pursued that policy with even greater vigour than the Labour Government. I know because I lived through it. We have to try to remedy this disaster of the past.
I now turn to the what is very near and dear to my heart. Dockland is part of my constituency of Bermondsey. Today I represent an area that has been derelict for a great number of years. It was derelict throughout the reign of the Conservative Government from 1970 to 1974, and before that. I am ashamed of the neglect, of the lack of planning and of the lack of any enterprise there. I am sick of it. I am today a dockers' Member of Parliament without a single docker in sight, except for those who get their living in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), in the Royal group of docks.
Some people will be very offended by my speech tonight. Let it be so. I am contemptuous of the Port of London Authority, a public trust. Viability is the only thing that matters to it. Over the last 20 years, whether Tory or Labour Governments have been in office, the PLA, despite its terms of reference as a public trust, has had no policy other than to shut down and to sack. It has not given a tuppenny damn about the social consequences or the heartaches, not only in regard to what it has done on the river front but also in regard to the effect on small businesses inland, to which reference has rightly been made this evening.
That policy has gone on and on, and the PLA is still operating exactly the same policy, based on its viability argument, in shutting down the Royal group of docks, throwing thousands of men out of work. However, that is not the end of the story there. I have nothing but contempt for that policy, and for the PLA and all that it represents.
What should be the alternative to this policy? We have this great river, the Thames, the greatest river in the world, running through the heart of the greatest capital city in the world, and there is hardly any traffic on the river except for the odd pleasure boat. Whether we are Tory or Labour Members, we cannot but feel ashamed that there has not been enough ingenuity shown to ensure that the River Thames is better used. The PLA is concerned only with big ships, great cargoes, and masses of dock workers. That is not my attitude at all. I believe that there must be an entirely different approach to the river from anything that we have seen before.
When the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) was the Minister concerned I pleaded with him not just to have an inquiry into what could be done for docklands but to set up a development corporation on the same lines as those for the new towns. The new towns have always been successful. There is not a new town corporation which has not been a success, under any Government. I want to see a development corporation set up for docklands, and I also want to see a development corporation to deal with the river. Why should not the terms of reference for such a development corporation be the provision of housing and of industry and of trade on the river, backed with Government money? This should have been done in the past. Is it too late to do it now?
I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South will catch your eye, because he is able to talk with great knowledge of the Royal group of docks. He is an expert. I understand that about £30 million is to be provided by the Government in order to keep the Royal group of docks going for a few more months. What will happen after that? The PLA policy will still, I believe, be to shut down the docks and to sack the people who work in them. I believe—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), but the question of the financing of the Royal group of docks has been ruled out of order. It is possibly in order to refer to employment in the docks, but many hon. Members who were wishing to raise the other aspect have been told that they would be out of order in doing so.

Mr. Mellish: I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am the last to challenge any of your rulings, but, if we are talking about the closure of docks, we are talking about employment. That is logical. If I say in one context that the Royal group of docks may be closed and 3,500 men may lose their jobs, I know that you will he the first to agree that that is in order. In this context, no one can argue with that, so I am in order. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South knows all

about the Royal group of docks and will explain why they should not be closed thus adding to unemployment.
To deal with the problems of dockland and the river, I want a development corporation with power from the Government, with finance and with terms of reference which will give London heart. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone cannot talk about anyone overstating the problems of dockland or say that that is not all that relevant because his constituency suffers from unemployment. If the river is revitalised and work returns to it, people in St. Marylebone and elsewhere—small businesses and large—will benefit.
There is another problem to which I hope the Minister will give special attention. How crazy can we get? Decisions were taken some years ago, based on the Hardman report, to send a large number of civil servants away from London. One decision was that 360 Government chemists in my constituency should be sent to Cumbria. That might have been justified when the report was published, but it is not right—it cannot be right—today.
We all accept that employment in London has changed dramatically from the days when we had all the fat and more employment than we needed. It might have been a good thing to send people to Cumbria then, but things have changed. Yet that policy is still to be followed. The Government still intend to send those chemists to Cumbria. How crazy can we get?
This decision will cost over £20 million for the provision of offices for 360 people outside London. The thing is so daft that they will even allow some of these chemists to stay because most of their work is connected with Heathrow airport. So there will still be a small nucleus in London. But the rest, whether they like it or not—and 98 per cent. do not want to go—must go to Cumbria.
Of course we have made representations. I have begged the Ministers responsible not to carry out this foolhardy policy in the light of London's new situation. I have been told that it is a Cabinet decision. Cabinet decisions can be unmade by Cabinet. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Employment is


here. He could not possibly justify such a move at such a cost in such circumstances. If the Under-Secretary does nothing else tonight, he might be kind enough to refer to that aspect of my speech.
Is it really the Government's intention, in London's present plight, to be so daft and so impossible as to send such people to Cumbria with their wives and families? First, they do not want to go; second, the cost is astronomical and will only add to the unemployment among my own people.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that as recently as 25th July the Under-Secretary of State for Industry refused even to meet a deputation from the Greater London Council, which still sought to persuade him not to allow this move? He would not even meet the deputation, so I add my support to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. We need some sort of answer. However, I have the feeling that the Minister present is not in a position to answer, because the matter concerns the Department of Industry and not the Department of Employment.

Mr. Mellish: I cannot comment on that. I am not involved. However, I accept what the hon. Member has said. I am sure that he would not have said it were it not true. However, I can assure the House that if any Minister in this Government thinks that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey will let the Government get away with it, he has made the biggest mistake that he has made for a long time. I shall be seen by Ministers. I have a right to be seen. My work and my life in the Labour Party and in the House of Commons are enough for any Minister, I hope, to be prepared to listen to me. However, I hope that hon. Members will not take me too far down that path, because I have enough to say without that.
But that is a matter which some of us take very seriously, and we shall not put up with very much more.
I want to move on to discuss the sale of council houses. I suppose that the Opposition think that this will be a real money spinner for them at the time of a General Election, that it is a great story, and that it will win them a lot of votes. However, I know as much about housing

as any Opposition Member. As a matter of fact, I was at the Housing Ministry for two weeks. That must be some record. One comment that can be made about my period at the Ministry is that I made no mistakes; I was not there long enough. But I had no successes either. However, I almost achieved my ambition to get that job. I wish that I had.
But, as I said earlier today in a Question to the Prime Minister, hundreds of my constituents living in council properties hoped and prayed to be transferred to housing owned by the present Tory-controlled GLC in the outer London boroughs. I can produce documentary evidence about it, because housing managers are now writing to us from the outer London boroughs saying "I am sorry, but there is no hope for you. Although you were earmarked for transfer, the flats and houses are now on the list to be sold."
There is an estate in my constituency built by the GLC. It happened to be a Labour-controlled GLC. It was started by the Labour-controlled council and completed just as it went out of office. They are excellent properties. Everyone is after them. They are to be put up for sale to the highest bidder.
Let me point out to the Opposition that no one is keener than I am about a property-owning democracy. I have always understood and upheld the idea of a property-owning democracy. I have been through it all—living with in-laws, living in a flat, living in council property, and now buying my own home. That has been my life. I know what it is all about. Without any hesitation, I say that the greatest of those is buying one's own home. I accept that. If a property-owning democracy means anything at all, it means that people should be encouraged all down the line to buy their own homes. But to say that and then to talk of people living in council properties, bearing in mind the great demand in inner London, means that if someone purchases a council property there is no possibility at all of a transfer.
No London Member worthy of his salt can talk of housing and ignore the fact that it is transfers again and again which solve London's housing problems. There is not an Opposition Member who does not know that that is true. Every


time a house is sold, it is taken out of the stock.

Mr. Tebbit: In my constituency, as in many others in the same borough—including Walthamstow and Leyton, although the hon. Members who represent them are not here at the moment—we have a severe problem. There is simply no more land to develop for housing. Is the right hon. Member saying that the council tenants in my constituency are never to be allowed to buy houses in my constituency, that they can buy them somewhere else, but they have to move from Chingford if they wish to own their homes? I do not think that that is fair or reasonable.

Mr. Mellish: The case that the hon. Gentleman is raising for his own constituency may well be valid. I do not know his area, but I know my own. I am speaking of the heartaches created by the blockage of people who are not allowed to move from my constituency into, say, this or somebody else's. That is the great disaster. The hon. Gentleman must accept that from me.
I may upset some of my hon. Friends when I say that I do not object, and never have objected, to people being allowed to buy their own property, wherever it is, whether it is council property or otherwise, provided it can be shown that the purchase of such property does no harm to meeting what I regard as social need. There are areas where council property dominates and the housing need is not great and there is no reason why people should not be allowed to buy. I would encourage and induce them to do so with cheap mortgages. It would save on maintenance. I could go through a whole range of reasons why a property-owning democracy is so much better. But let us not be blinded to the fact that thousands of ordinary folk are waiting for a good home by transfer which they cannot get by purchase.
The Department of the Environment is not my pin-up Department. Looking back over the past two or three years, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) that its record has been very good for London. It has done a great deal. Recently it has made it possible for the

Docklands Joint Committee to be given millions of pounds to do a first class job.
Will somebody tell me why that Department, which is supposed to have a press office and all that flows from that, does not advertise what it is doing? It deserves the criticism of Conservative Members. It is so thick. It is unbelievable that a Department could allow that man Cutler across the road to get away with the rubbish he gets away with night after night, aided and abetted by the Evening News, which will print any of his rubbish.
The Department of the Environment should fight, because its story is so much better than that "phoney's". His latest one is that dockland should be an Olympic arena. Only Cutler could have said that. He is a gimmicky, rubbishy man, who just talks like a smart alec estate agent of what is best for the moment to catch the press.
Although I have been critical of the past, this Government's record is one of which I am not ashamed. But I hope and pray that the time is coming when the Department of the Environment will sell that record. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with some of my points. I ask him specifically to deal with the question of those civil servants who are still under the threat of being moved from London because of a Hardman report which is 10 years out of date.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Hunt.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. John Hunt: You took me unawares, Mr. Speaker. I was not rising at that moment, but I gladly do so in response to your invitation.
It is a disgrace that London's affairs are debated so rarely in this House, particularly when one realises that we have spent many interminable months over Wales and Scotland. The only time that we seem to have to debate London is as a result of a Back-Bencher's initiative. In that respect I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shore-ditch (Mr. Brown), who initiated the debate. Others of us have done similar things on previous occasion. This is the only way in which we can debate the affairs of our great capital city.
May I take up again the excellent suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebonc (Mr. Baker), of allocating a period of Question Time on a Friday morning specifically for London? As I said in an intervention, I would go a little further and ask for the appointment of a Minister for London. I say that because Greater London's population exceeds that of Wales and Scotland combined. Yet each of those areas has a Secretary of tSate sitting in the Cabinet, able to represent the views of his area at Cabinet level. London is deprived of similar representation. There is a case for a Minister for this city, not only because of its size but because of its grave and growing problems, many of which have been mentioned tonight. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch referred to the mythology which grew up in the past about a thriving and prosperous London. That is so. It is a mythology which persists. There are still those who believe that London's streets are paved with gold. Those of us who represent Greater London constituencies know that the truth is very different.
Having paid tribute to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch for initiating the debate, I have to join issue with him over some of his remarks. He seemed to be using part of his speech as a peg on which to hang a somewhat intemperate attack on the Conservative-controlled Greater London Council. There seems to have been an element of double-talk in his speech. In one breath he was accusing the Conservative-controlled GLC of not wanting to do anything about London's unemployment problems, yet a few weeks ago he and others of his hon. Friend's denied the GLC powers which it had been seeking in this House through its General Powers Bill. This Bill would have assisted industry in London. It would have enabled the GLC to lend for industrial buildings, to guarantee finance for London's dockland and other areas. One of the schemes which would have been assisted in the context of that Bill concerned plans by a firm called Trammell Crow which had plans for an investment of £50 million and the provision of 12,000 jobs in dockland.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member is well known for his fairness and decency.

He will know that in that debate to which he was referring one of the reasons why a number of us opposed the GLC Bill was that we were convinced that the Inner Urban Areas Bill, as it then was, presented by the Government was a better choice. On the point about Trammell Crow, I understand that if it wishes to get the money which it requires it will be able to do so under section 86 of the Industry Act and, as far as I know, there is no doubt but that it will get the money.

Mr. Hunt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is correct on that latter point. All I can say is that the GLC was extremely disappointed that the Bill failed as a result of the votes of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. While I acknowledge that the Inner Urban Areas Act is of some benefit, I believe that the two measures could have been complementary and assisted London in a much more effective way.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I thought that the hon. Member was about to refer to a previous occasion when he voted against that same GLC Bill. I moved the Second Reading and he and his hon. Friends voted solidly against it. It was only because we were able to whip up support that we were able to defeat him. The hon. Member is being thoroughly dishonest in his remarks about what happened last time. On that occasion, there were three clauses put into the Bill by Labour-controlled authorities, not by the GLC. The hon. Member must be sensible and honest about this.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman did not mean "dishonest" in the usual sense. He meant "not quite accurate", I think.

Mr. Hunt: I know the hon. Gentleman well enough to accept your interpretation of what he has said, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that the two Bills were different and that different judgments were brought to bear on each occasion. If the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue the point, perhaps he can do so on some other occasion. I do not recall my votes against the Bill on the previous occasion if it was in identical terms to the one I supported. Perhaps he can send me evidence of that at a later stage.
As is now generally acknowledged, unemployment in Greater London represents a grim and still deteriorating situation. It is a blot on the face of our capital. One of the greatest loss of jobs has been in manufacturing industry, which is largely a reflection of the demise or removal of a large number of small firms. It is the small business that holds the key to future employment opportunities in London. One has only to reflect that if all the small firms in Greater London were able to recruit just one or two additional men or women, that in itself would have a dramatic effect on employment opportunities in the capital.
It is a grim and horrifying fact that between 1961 and 1974 London lost no fewer than 500,000 manufacturing jobs, seven times the national average. This emphasises again the gravity of the situation in London as compared with many other parts of the country.
When the figures for Greater London as a whole are quoted, they mask the reality of the situation in that, by lumping Greater London together, one is able to project a rather more favourable impression than is the case in some of the inner city areas. Happily, the employment situation in Bromley is nowhere near as serious as in such inner London areas as Poplar, where unemployment is 14·8 per cent., Deptford, with 14·1 per cent., and Stepney, with 13·6 per cent. These are some of the worst figures in the country and are a disgrace to our capital. Areas like Holloway, Fulham and Bermondsey are equally affected.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone recalled the thinking of the 1960s which drove so many firms out of London. The tragedy is that that thinking still persists. The case of the Royal Mint has been mentioned. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey quoted the case of the laboratory of the Government chemist with his usual force, vigour and outspokenness. I can only emphasise and support what he said. A number of my constituents work at the laboratory, so I know the feelings of despair they have at the Government's obstinacy in sticking to a decision made years ago when the situation was very different, at the Government's refusal to acknowledge the change that has taken place in London

in the intervening period, and at the absurdity of pushing forward with the move at great expense and at appalling inconvenience to those families who are to be affected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) referred to the fact that the Government had refused to see a deputation from the GLC about the matter. That gives me the opportunity to place on record that the GLC is now very much involved in this matter and Miss Shelagh Roberts has been in correspondence with the Department of Industry. In a letter in May of this year to the Secretary of State she referred to the impending move of the laboratory, and everyone acknowledges that the present accommodation is unsuitable and unsatisfactory and that a new purpose-built building is desirable. She made the point, which I think would be emphasised and supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that it would be much more desirable if an alternative location could be found for it in London,
if possible in one of the inner city partnership areas where its location would also be very much in keeping with the Government's policy of bringing new life to these areas".
I am sorry to say that in a reply dated 9th June 1978 the Under-Secretary of State referred to the fact that the move of the laboratory to Cumbria was made as part of the Government's dispersal programme in 1974—that is more than four years ago—and his letter concluded:
I can hold out no hope of the decisions being reopened.
That is just another indication of the blatant bias that exists at ministerial level against London in so many matters of this kind. London's voice is not being heard as effectively as it should be at Government level and I hope that this debate will play some small part in emphasising the strength of feeling amongst Londoners that our capital city is not getting a fair deal and that we expect our needs to be more sympathetically considered in the future.
I conclude my speech with a quotation from a document which was issued in connection with the seminar for London Members by the London Employment Forum, an initiative which has been referred to in this House and which I applaud as being a most useful


step in the right direction of informing hon. Members on both sides of the House of the problems of London at the present time and of creating an effective lobby at Westminster on behalf of the capital. The report concludes:
London represents too large a proportion of the national resources to be allowed to

decline further, and it has, on the other hand, a great potential which the country needs. It is this which now needs to be promoted in the interest not just of London but of the nation as a whole.
That, I think, is an effective theme for this debate. It is one that I support, and I hope that I carry the rest of the House with me.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. John Tilley: This debate is about the problems of London, but when I talk about my part of inner London I am also talking about the problems faced by people in the inner areas of all the great cities of Britain. This is an important point, because in the last year since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published his White Paper on the inner cities there have been by-elections in three inner city areas and anyone following those will have seen from the publicity the similarity of the problems in Birmingham. Ladywood, Lambeth, Central, Manchester, Moss Side— and before I am interrupted, and I was brought up in that area—Nottingham, West.
On the other hand, there are parts of outer London which, while in the same city as Lambeth, Central, are a world away in terms of prosperity and amenities, and they are, I am sorry to say, represented largely by Conservative Members. Indeed, we have just heard a speech from the hon. Member for Ravens-bourne (Mr. Hunt), who represents such an area.
I make that point to emphasise that I do not really agree with the bipartisan attitude that has come out so far in this debate that London should almost become a separate province with its own Secretary of State. Nor would I go along with having a devolved London Assembly. I have often thought that had we described the GLC, when it was set up in 1964, as the London Assembly there would not now be such great support for assemblies in other parts of Great Britain. It seems to me that all the inner city areas throughout the county should have a fair share of the funds available, and in anything we say tonight we should not fail to recognise the very great deprivation which also exists in the assisted areas of Britain. We must, therefore, balance the needs of inner London with those other needs.
I certainly recognise the efforts that have been made by my right hon. Friend and by his hon. Friends in the various Ministries. I am glad to see present the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, who is a member of the Lambeth partnership committee. During the past two

years the problems of the inner city areas have been revealed and explained in a way that has not happened before. I pay credit to the work undertaken by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) several years ago in beginning the studies. Practical steps have been taken, contrary to the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker). The partnership committees have been set up, the Inner Urban Areas Bill has been passed and the programme for the next three years is largely agreed. There have been some concrete achievements.
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to mention the fact that the employment exchange area in London with the highest unemployment was that of Brixton. I represent most of that area. In fact, there has been a considerable decline in unemployment in Brixton over the last year. It is still much too high, but there has been a decline, particularly in male adult unemployment. That must be recognised.
However, a great deal still needs to be done before the inner city policy shows results. I would say that to any Front Bench. I say it to my own, which happens to be the Government at present and will, I hope, remain so for a considerable time. The man on the Clapham omnibus is the lawyer's example of a reasonable observer of events. As it happens, most of the people on the buses of Clapham today are my constituents. By observations from their bus windows, from which they still see derelict sites, bad houses and closed shops and factories, I do not think that they are completely convinced that the inner city policy has begun to bite or is having a major direct impact on their lives. This policy needs to be sustained not only at current levels of public expenditure but at increased levels of public expenditure, especially in the inner cities. That is why I hope that we shall have a Labour Government who will see this policy through to its successful conclusion. I hope that they will not be replaced by a Tory Government who, in my view, in spite of the fine words of the right hon. Member for Worcester in The Guardian, would make massive cuts in public expenditure in the years to come.
Indeed, the high cost of travelling on a Clapham, or any other, omnibus or any


other part of London Transport, is one of the reasons why people are increasingly looking for employment in their own home area, and increasingly finding it difficult to obtain that employment. Employment is the main issue of this debate, and that is the only reference to transportation that I shall make.
I come on to employment. I think—I say this in the context of what has been said by several other hon. Members—that we must come to the end of the stage of just congratulating ourselves on the discovery that the key to inner city decay is that firms have been closing down faster than they have been starting up. We have known for some time. The hon. Member for Ravensbourne said that 500,000 manufacturing jobs had been lost in London between 1971 and 1974. I shall not draw attention to which Government were in power during those years, because this is a problem which no Government have solved. The Labour Government are beginning to solve the problem. The diagnosis is correct, but the patients—the unemployed—who are suffering from the disease are tired of diagnosis and want some more direct cure.
The public authorities can no longer sit back and wait for the private entrepreneur magically to appear to solve their problems. They must do more than just make planning regulations more flexible or merely reduce the number of forms to be completed. I agree that both those steps are necessary and are long overdue, but there is now consensus on that score and the Government have taken action.
The Government must also insist on a certain proportion of inner city funds being earmarked specifically for projects of economic revival. Social and environmental projects are important, but we must clearly state that that is the second priority of inner city policy.
We can no longer make do with a subsidy system involving hand-me-down from assisted areas. The small firms subsidy is an excellent means of helping existing small firms to expand their work force, but it is restricted to manufacturing. We have heard about the decline in manufacturing and want more of it, but in Lambeth, for example, only 15 per cent. of the work force is to be found in manu-

facturing. Many of the best possibilities for expansion and new jobs are in distribution and services. If the policy is to have any effect, those of us who represent the inner city areas should insist that the subsidy is extended to all small firms in the inner city partnership areas.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend referred to me rather gratuitously at the beginning of his speech. Will he at some point in his remarks deal with the argument that, for example, London Underground or any other transport system subsidises those who are more distant from central London rather than the people in the centre of London? There is a differential subsidy, and I am sure that my hon. Friend must be against that.

Mr. Tilley: I hoped that my reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) would have been taken as being gracious rather than gratuitous, since I was the first of the Labour Members to admit that I saw something in the point he was putting. I know that my hon. Friend represents a part of Nottingham that includes an inner city area, and I am sorry that he was not more grateful to me for my reference to him.
I said that I did not intend to say any more about transport because it is a complex issue. I agree that the further somebody lives from central London the greater the probability that he will receive a higher subsidy than the person who lives in the centre of London. Furthermore, the person in the inner city will be at a disadvantage stemming from the structure of London Transport fares. Therefore, the issue is not as simple as my hon. Friend's interjection might suggest. I hope that he will regard that reply as gracious rather than gratuitous.
We have to recognise that although existing private enterprise must be given help to expand and survive in inner cities, this will make only a limited contribution to the number of jobs. There is no real prospect that large-scale private industry will come back to the inner city to a significant extent, given the overall national level of investment. Therefore, I believe that we need much more public intervention to create jobs. The Cooperative Development Agency will have a role to play in this respect, as I pointed


out in my maiden speech two months ago.
Furthermore, we must give the National Enterprise Board a clear duty to set up small firms in inner cities and to place sub-contracts with the existing small firms, whether they be run by public or private enterprise. When we achieve effective planning agreements with a number of major companies, I believe that they should include a commitment to direct location of individual new plants in inner city areas.
All public sector policies affect employment in the inner cities. The largest employers in my constituency are the local authorities and the health services—and that is the case by a long chalk. Employment in these areas should be increasing, particularly as this involves desperately needed services. However, the opposite is now happening. The local authority education service in London, excellent as it is, is still suffering from the cuts imposed by the present Government in previous years, and because of restrictions imposed by the Government two schools in my constituency are losing teachers. When the term has ended, they will have lost them.
I cannot tell the parents at Santley and Loughborough schools that the Government are planning to pump in resources through the inner city programme. All that they want is to keep the present teaching resources.

Mr. Arthur Latham: My hon. Friend has referred to supporting small businesses in inner city areas. Does he confine himself to the areas that have so far been designated by the Government? He represents an area that benefits under inner city legislation, but does he have a view about areas such as mine in Paddington, and areas in neighbouring Camden, that have been excluded from the inner city proposals but none the less have concentrated areas of deprivation that would match any area in his constituency?

Mr. Tilley: I should include other areas of inner London, but it would be dangerous if such support were extended London-wide. I have in mind the parts of outer London that already have considerable prosperity and have already attracted many firms from the inner city

areas. There are many other areas of inner London that should be able to benefit from subsidies. That is because inner London is really one travel-to-work area. Many of my constituents, in spite of the high cost of fares, take a bus to Camden or to Paddington to work.
The Health Service is the second largest employer in my constituency. It is in a worse state than many other sectors. In common with education, it is suffering from the effects of cuts and standstills of previous years. It now faces further cuts. Under the proposals of the Resources Allocation Working Party, my area health authority faces cuts of £3 million a year. I do not dispute that there are regions elsewhere that have a lower level of medical services, although there is none, I believe, with a higher level of need. I object to the principle of levelling down. That means that the Health Service becomes uniformly inadequate.
Yesterday I visited King's College hospital in my constituency. I could hardly tell the doctors and staff of the Government's great inner city plans. All that they want is to hold on to the services and standards that they have already attained. They want to avoid having to close down the accident and emergency unit. That is now happening several times a week because they have a nursing shortage and because they are operating in a building that was built in 1911 for 10,000 patients a year and is now trying to cope with 84,000 a year.
Employment in London is naturally linked with housing. The point has already been made, and I will not labour it, except to say that the supply of labour will be drastically reduced by the lack of mobility that will result in inner London from the GLC's policy of refusing to accept its responsibility to house Londoners who cannot afford to buy homes of their own.
We are not concerned only with the selling of council houses, although that has had a disastrous effect on inner city policy. For example, in the borough of Lambeth there are 13,000 families on the housing waiting list and about 18,000 families in GLC flats, many of them prewar barrack blocks that are badly in need of modernisation. We should not argue about who built those blocks. The fact is that people are still living in them.


There is no land left in Lambeth on which the council can build enough houses to help those in the two categories to which I have referred.
The only way in which the problem can be solved in an overcrowded and densely developed borough is for help to be made available from outside the borough boundaries, by making land and homes available in outer London where, apart from Chingford, which we have heard about this evening, the pressures are not so great and the resources are available. Many Government reports have shown that the housing resources exist in such areas.
The door has been slammed shut by the Tory GLC. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said, help from outside was the only hope for thousands of families in inner South London, be it Southwark or Lambeth, who wanted a transfer to a house with a garden for their children to grow up in and for their own old age. The GLC has stopped building in outer London. It is selling off the houses that it already owns in those areas either to borough councils or to tenants.
The policy is known as "giving tenants a choice" or "concentrating resources in inner London". Its effect in Lambeth is to deny families any chance, never mind any choice of a home. All that is concentrated in inner London is misery and despair.

Mr. William Shelton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that about two years ago, in answer to a Question about Lambeth council, the House was told that there were 50 acres of derelict land in Lambeth, much of which was owned by Lambeth council, awaiting development when the council could get round to it?

Mr. Tilley: I was not aware of that answer. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would suggest that there are now large areas of potential housing land in Lambeth or that the Lambeth borough council, under Labour, has not looked hard for housing land in order to build as many houses as possible. The general point still stands.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Is my hon. Friend aware that, just across the boundary from

Streatham, the Merton borough council has decided to slash its council house building programme by half over the next five years? Only half of the 300 houses a year that the council is proposing to build are to be offered to those in housing need. That is the response of Conservative councils in outer London to the kind of pressures that exist in inner London. It is impossible for those pressures to be relieved because of the attitude of Tory councils.

Mr. Tilley: I do not want to make party political points, but I must agree with my hon. Friend.
I shall spare the House a quotation from The Guardian that I was going to read. But many thousands of households consisting of pensioners, single-parent families, unemployed and those on low wages—I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West that there are many people on very low wages in inner London despite what he thinks—will never be able to afford a GLC or indeed any other home. For those people all hope has gone.
So far the Labour Government have expressed disapproval of the GLC's housing policy. I think that they must now act to stop this frittering away of London's housing assets. Londoners in housing need have the right to decent housing wherever it exists, whether in inner or outer London. We shall be looking to the Government for action on that issue.
Returning more directly to employment, we must also take measures to help those who want to work but find it difficult because of family commitments. For example, there are thousands of vacancies for secretarial and office jobs at reasonable rates of pay in inner London. In Lambeth there are many women qualified for those jobs, but they cannot take them because they have young children and cannot find adequate day care, if the children are under five, or, if older, adequate care after school and during school holidays.
Many are one-parent families who are forced to go on supplementary benefit. During a recent lobby of Members by the London Gingerbread group, reference was made to a scheme in Croydon called Gingerbread Corner. The provision of child care enabled 66 single parents to work at a cost equivalent to the annual


supplementary benefit payments for five of those families. That is an important point.

Mr. John Moore: As the hon. Gentleman has referred to Croydon, perhaps he would draw attention to the fact that the Gingerbread centre in Croydon was financed by the European Economic Community on a special grant, which has now been renewed.

Mr. Tilley: I promised not to be partisan, but I have to admit that has not converted me to being a pro-Marketeer. However, I take the point.
This fuller provision of day care and nursery education would also benefit children during their first formative years when, in inner city areas, many acquire disadvantages from which they never recover.
The most urgent objective of employment policy—this is my last point—is to provide more jobs for young people, and especially to give equal access to those jobs—to black youngsters for whom the unemployment rate is much higher, despite the growing educational success of some secondary schools in my area and in the inner city in general. These black youngsters are increasingly alienated from society when they leave school, as many have done in the last few weeks. They will have nothing to do except hang around the streets, because jobs are not available for them. The only time that they will think the authorities take any notice of them is when they are picked up as "suspected persons".
The youth opportunities programme means that every youngster has the chance of a training place. That was a great step forward by this Government. But after the training is over, there is not always a job. Discrimination in employment is an added disadvantage with which black people have to cope in inner London.
Unemployment creates fertile ground for racialism. Deprivation and unemployment in Lambeth are not just black problems. Working people, black and white, suffer from bad housing, lack of jobs, poor health services and a depressing environment. There can be no separate solution for the problems of black working people, any more than there

can for the problems of white working people. They must both demand a joint attack on the problems they share, including a demand for greater public expenditure in the inner city areas of need. We also need a reallocation of existing public expenditure.
We spend too much on dealing with the effects of unemployment—unemployment pay, dealing with crime and vandalism and training people for jobs that do not exist. Perhaps we should spend more of that money directly on curing the disease of unemployment in inner London and then many of the costly symptoms would disappear.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. William Shelton: Bearing in mind that 21 Labour Members put their names to this debate and considering the number actually in the Chamber, I must conclude that many of them have been unavoidably detained elsewhere. If other business has kept them away, I am sure that they will read Hansard with great interest tomorrow morning.
It has always seemed to me that Labour Members live dangerously when they initiate debates on London. If we look at areas with some of the worst housing and employment conditions in the country, we usually find that they have had Labour councils for some time —whether in central London or parts of Liverpool, Glasgow and other major cities of Great Britain.
The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) suggested that it was extraordinary that where one finds bad conditions, one finds Labour control and where one finds good conditions, one finds Conservative control. No doubt he believes that this is a coincidence—but perhaps it is not.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) mentioned the Clerkenwell Workshops. I do not know as much about them as he does, but I have followed their progress with great interest. They are employing about 450 people and this is the way to make employment in London. We shall do it not through job creation schemes and local or central Government intervention, but, unashamedly, through free enterprise.
In a newspaper today—not, I think, the Evening News which has come under


considerable attack from Labour Benches—I noticed a cartoon of a man standing proudly in front of the premises of his new undertaking and peering down the street. The caption read:
How exciting. Here come my first customers.
The man could not see that on the briefcase of the man at the head of the file of people coming down the street were written the words "VAT man", on the second briefcase were the words "Excise duty man", on the third "Planning department", on the fourth "Safety regulations department", on the fifth "Fire regulation department" and so on. That cartoon indicates what is, unfortunately, happening far too often today, especially with small businesses.
The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central and I agree that we put the interests of our borough first. We may disagree on how to achieve them, but we have the same objectives. I believe that it is through the growth of small businesses that we shall re-create what we used to have in Lambeth.
I have said that I think that Labour Member live dangerously when they talk about our inner cities. There is this coincidence about the level of unemployment and deprivation in relation to which type of party has been in power. Tonight, we are basically talking about employment. The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central said with great satisfaction that unemployment had decreased in Brixton.
Streatham, which happens to be a Conservative seat, does not have an employment exchange. It has a jobcentre, but not an employment exchange. I can give the hon. Member the figures for unemployment in Brixton. I hope that he will remain as satisfied about them when I have given them to him as he was when he was speaking.
In April 1972, the unemployment rate there was 5·3 per cent. In October 1973, it dropped to 3·1 per cent. In April 1975, after a year of Labour Government, it rose to 5·6 per cent.—higher than the rate in April 1972. Then in January 1978 it went up to 7·7 per cent. The hon. Member will be delighted to know that in April 1978 the date was 7·7 per cent. So the fall in unemployment—unless the hon. Member has figures for a month that is later than April—about which he is

so pleased, is 0·6 per cent. It is down from 7·7 per cent to 7·1 per cent. I hope that the hon. Member is pleased about that.

Mr. Tilley: I think that I am being misquoted, and misquoted out of context. I said very clearly that the worst unemployment in London was in Brixton, and that I was by no means satisfied with that level. What I went on to say was that, contrary to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker), there has been a slight improvement. That has been shown in what the hon. Member has just quoted. There has been a slight improvement over the last year. That is some indication that in the Brixton area there has been a slight improvement in male adult employment. I think that that is what the figures relate to.
The point that I am making is that after going in the wrong direction for so long, under both Labour and Tory Governments, we should both be glad that there is a slight move in the right direction. All of us who represent inner city areas should press for that move to be accelerated. But I do not think that any hon. Member is satisfied with the level of unemployment in the inner city. It is absolute nonsense for anyone to suggest that.

Mr. Shelton: Of course I accept what the hon. Member says. Tomorrow I shall read Hansard with great interest, because I noted down that the words that the hon. Member used were "considerable decrease in unemployment." Obviously I was mistaken about that, though I shall check it tomorrow.
One certainly finds that unemployment is very localised in this country, and even in South London. We find pockets of unemployment. One of the causes must be the considerable immobility of the work force. This is something at which all politicians, statesmen and anyone in any position of influence must look very carefully. One of the major reasons for immobility is the appalling difficulties we have with housing.
I am sure that everyone in the Chamber this evening will agree with me, especially if he represents an inner urban centre, that the great majority of the people who come to them with problems come with problems about housing, of one sort or


another. Until we solve some of the difficulties we have with housing, we shall not solve the difficulties we have with areas of unemployment.
There is no doubt that housing, going back to the end of the First World War or even to the beginning of this century, is a classic example of the good intentions of politicians resulting in disastrous consequences. Again and again, people of both the major parties, but especially the Labour Party—the interventionist party—have, with good intentions, tried to do things to benefit their fellow kind, with very bad consequences. We have now found ourselves in such a maze on housing matters that I defy almost anyone, even the next Conservative Government, to find a way out of it.
I would define these major problems in three areas. There is, first, the whole problem of the council tenant who is trapped in his council house. I wish that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), for whom I have a high regard, was in the Chamber. He asked how we could recommend the sale of council houses when that would reduce the degree of transfer. For heaven's sake, we all know the difficulties of council house tenants in getting transfers. I could provide a list of 50 or 60 of my constituents who are currently trying to get transfers but cannot. I do not know why they cannot. Let no hon. Member say that it is because of the sale of council houses. That has not started yet. I suspect that it comes back to the bureaucratic machine or the lack of a computer. But there is no good transfer system in London.
The inability of the council tenant to transfer has meant an inevitable unemployment problem. I wish that transfers provided the solution, but they do not.

Mr. Spearing: I think that the hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine share the same problem. Ronan Point is in my constituency. We do not want tower blocks, but if the families with children want to move out of them and into houses with gardens, assuming that we can get the machinery to work, the selling off of such houses in his borough would reduce their chances of doing so.

Mr. Shelton: Most sales of council houses will be to sitting tenants. In

addition there is greater immobility among the owner-ocupiers than there is in the council section. Immobility is frequently due to the drying-up of rented accommodation. Short-lease or rented accommodation has always been one of the methods enabling people to seek work. They could afford to rent a room for a week or a month while they looked for work. That is almost no longer possible thanks to the Rent Act 1974. The Labour Party bears a heavy burden of responsibility in that direction. I do not know how much the Rent Act has increased unemployment, but the proportion must be considerable. People can no longer venture forth from London or Birmingham to elsewhere looking for work. They know that they will be unable to rent a room easily and at a reasonable price because of the depressing and evil 1974 Act.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the 1974 Act has enabled people with relatively modest incomes to remain in jobs and housing in London because it has prevented their eviction to make way for people on much higher incomes? Without the Rent Act there would have been an increase in accommodation costing £40 a week or more, but a reduction in that which people on relatively modest incomes can afford. The 1974 Act has had a beneficial effect on employment.

Mr. Shelton: I think that the hon. Gentleman is supporting my case. The Rent Act has dried up the supply of rented accommodation. That must have a damaging effect on employment. People who seek work rely on rented accommodation in order to move between areas.

Mr. Tebbit: It seems to me that we have a rather difficult problem here, because the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) wants to move his contituents into Chingford and to push out my constituents. Some of my constituents would no doubt be very happy, being prosperous middle-class people, if they could rent accommodation closer to London, so that they could live in inner London. If we could have a little more freedom of movement, we might be able to satisfy my constituents, the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members at one and the same time.

Mr. Shelton: The next factor affecting mobility is the appalling house-building


record of the present Government. My understanding is that people who own houses and who are therefore able to sell houses should they move from one part of the country to another, and who have a stake in the community, move more often than those in council houses or council apartments. House ownership, instead of being a constraint on mobility, acts to the contrary. That is my understanding.
I remind the House of Labour's housing record. Compared with 1971–73, a period of Conservative rule, the house-building figure under Labour in the period 1974–76 dropped by about 40,000 starts per annum. The total in the period was 122,000 houses, a drop of 37 per cent. compared with the earlier period under Conservative rule. If we look at the period 1976–77, we find that there has been under Labour rule a drop of some 60,000 houses. Indeed, 1977 was the worst year for new starts for a decade.
It is perfectly true that the record was not as bad in council building as it was in private building. One can only suppose that this springs from the present Government's aspirations to move towards the concept of a country of council tenants. Indeed, in Scotland, which has had Labour rule for a great many years, over 50 per cent. of the people are in council homes. Although my statement contained some hyperbole, it was not entirely ill-founded, I think.
In my constituency, and elsewhere in South London—I am sure that the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central will agree with me—there are some profoundly disquieting aspects of council estates. I think that we all bear some responsibility for this. The quality of life in most council estates in inner urban areas is very much to be deplored. I do not think that any of us can be proud of it. I blame the planners; who have already been blamed, and I also blame those people who wish to continue creating and fostering and enlarging council estates when they see the standards to which the people living in them are condemned.
When I was a neophyte in politics, I used to think that the council tenants were in some way a privileged race because they contributed only about 40 per cent. towards the cost of council houses. I no longer hold that view. I think that today they are oppressed and captive

people, and they have all my sympathy. I would rather pay a much higher rent to live in private accommodation than be a council tenant today in the conditions in some of the estates in my constituency.
What is more, I defy any hon. Member of this House to say that a council tenant can confront the local housing manager, who is his servant, in the same way as he can confront the garage mechanic when he takes his car in to be repaired, or the hairdresser when he goes to have his hair cut. The way in which the council tenant today treats the garage attendant or the shopkeeper or his lawyer is quite different from the way in which he treats the bureaucrat who runs the local housing department. The reason is that that bureaucrat has a great deal of power over him. It is not a client relationship at all; it is a relationship of which we should not be proud.
Thirdly, the management of council estates accounts for much of this problem. The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central said that there are 14,000 on the waiting list in Lambeth. I thought that it was 16,000. but I will accept his figure. But I hope that he will accept that in April 3,994 homes owned by Lambeth council were standing empty. Some have been empty for years. I can take him to one which has been empty for four years and to another which was decorated and then stood empty for a year. The pigeons got in after six months and it has now been decorated again. These empty properties are a scandal.
The reason is not malice or cowardice and only to a limited extent is it stupidity. Mainly, it is a result of the council's municipalisation programmes, buying up property wherever it could on the open market, and pricing young couples out of the market. Then it did not have the machinery, the men or the money to do them up. So they stand empty while there are 14,000 or 16,000 on the waiting list. How can people respect politicians in the light of that absurdity? How can we be proud of our country when this can happen? It is disgraceful and wrong.
On Saturday, 30,000 questionnaires started going out in my name to every house in my constituency, asking people to tell me of any empty houses they know of, how long they have been empty and


who owns them. They are already coming back in, and I shall make the results known in four weeks. The answer to the problem is the selling of council houses. I will not go into the argument that it will damage mobility, although I think it will help mobility. But this policy will come only when we have a Conservative Government.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call anyone else, I would say that, for constitutional reasons, I never appeal for brief speeches on the Consolidated Fund Bill and that every hon. Member who is here will be called if he is patient. None the less, it would help if they had in mind those who are in the Ballot but lower in the list and who might not be called tomorrow morning if this debate is extended unduly. I have not asked for shorter speeches, but I have asked for fair play.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I shall keep my eye on the clock, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not be led too far from what I had intended to say by the speech of the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton). I would say only that I do not remember whether he was one of the few who voted against the 1974 Rent Act, which was passed through Parliament when the Labour Government were in the minority. Although the Opposition blustered, when it came to the point most of them did not vote against it. I think we can discount this talk about the 1974 Act being the cause of disaster. Everyone knew that it was a necessity, and that it still is.
The area which I represent in the House is coterminous with the old metropolitan borough of Fulham. When I first came into this House, it contained not one parliamentary constituency but two. It had therefore nearly twice the population it has at present, and that was the general pattern in inner London. Before we condemn past policies about London population and industry, we should ask ourselves whether we could endure a London today with inner London trying to cope with twice as many people as it now has. We mananged in those days only because people were much less well off. They did not demand the housing standards which they rightly demand now. They lived with their in-

laws for much longer after marriage than they do now. The proportion of them who owned motor cars was very much smaller. If we had now in inner London the population that we had just before the war, London's housing and transport problems would be not only difficult but totally insoluble.
Therefore we should accept that and not assume that people in the last decade or so were entirely stupid when they pursued policies which reduced first the population of inner London and later the population of London as a whole. But it is fair to say that we have now reached a point where the population of Greater London is on a manageable scale. I would not welcome policies that tried to increase it, though I do not see that there is any case for further substantial diminution.
But it is a manageable population only if we can deal with one aspect of its housing problem. I believe that there is enough land in Greater London to provide decent housing for the present population of Greater London. But it is well known that the people who are in the most acute need of housing cannot get access to the land in the more fortunately situated parts of outer London.
I always disliked the creation of the Greater London Council. It seemed to me to be a monstrosity in local government. The one excuse that there might have been for creating an authority of that size was if it had been given power to see that land in outer London was used for the needs of the crowded population of inner London. It was not given that power. It has never had it. In some stages of its history it has not had the will, either.
That is one mistake that has to be put right in London. If we want the mobility about which the hon. Member for Streatham spoke, again we shall have to see that there is the possibility of using the more abundant space in outer London for the needs of the more crowded populations of inner London.
The other need that we have to satisfy if we are to manage and provide properly for the present population of Greater London is jobs. We are seeking to provide more jobs in London not to attract in more population but to see that those who are already here have a better chance of employment.
The Inner Urban Areas Bill gives to the local authorities in London some of the instruments which will help in the creation not only of immediate but of permanent employment in inner London. Some of the powers given in the GLC (General Powers) Bill will be helpful to that end. I found it a little puzzling to follow the attitude of the Conservative Party to those powers. It seemed to me and to everyone who listened to the debate that in this year's GLC (General Powers) Bill powers were sought which had been derided and attacked by the Opposition in the previous year with the use of offensive expressions such as "Bennery", "bureaucracy", and the rest of it. Still, better late than never, they realised that such powers were a good thing.
The specific point that I want to make concerns training for comparatively skilled emploment. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) said that there was such training, but he asked what happened when the training course came to an end and there was no job. We must also ask "What happens if one gives the local authority power to promote and encourage enterprise, so that small businesses want to start up, businesses that need a certain amount of skilled labour, and it is not there?"
Clearly, one must somehow or other run in double harness the problem about the encouragement of firms and the problem about the provision of skilled labour. It is true that although there is in London a worrying general problem of unemployment, there are also instances of shortages of skilled labour in some areas.
Here the Inner London Education Authority is doing a good deal, and can do more. In my part of London very good work is being done by the West London College, which meets in particular the needs of people who do not come from fortunate circumstances. I was very glad, therefore, when a year or more ago the House defeated the Private Bill concerning the St. Paul's playing field, which would have wrecked the development and enlargement of the West London College. The college is now able to get on with its work and increase the facilities.
The matter is one that ILEA should now press forward particularly, showing in its whole policy a special regard for the needs of young people from, say, 16 to 20, partly in seeing that they can have technical education and encouraging more to stay on at school. I hope that in time we shall see the number of people coming on to the labour market permanently reduced by the fact that more and more young people will be making 18 rather than 16 the age at which they give up full-time education. That happened to a certain extent previously, when the statutory school leaving age was 14. Gradually the number who stayed to 15 increased. That has happened every time.
For some families it is a financial problem. I welcome the help that ILEA is now giving to make it easier for people of limited means to see that their children remain at school longer.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, who is to reply to the debate, cannot be expected to speak with equal fluency about employment, transport, the docks, education and everything else. Therefore, I merely ask him to draw what I am saying to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. For any help or encouragement she can give ILEA to provide appropriate kinds of education for the group of young people of whom I am speaking we shall be extremely grateful.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Given that, for good reasons or bad, we face the loss of manufacturing industry from London, and given that most firms will not contemplate opening or reopening in London without bringing skilled labour in with them, which conflicts with my right hon. Friend's argument about depopulation, will he address himself to the following dilemma? If we train youngsters to be skilled, the likelihood is that those newly trained skilled workers will move out of London to where the jobs are, and that will not contribute towards attracting the firms back. We cannot create a pool of skilled workers who will be on the unemployed register while we wait for manufacturing industry to reopen in London. Does my right hon. Friend see any prospect of overcoming that dilemma?

Mr. Stewart: The dilemma my hon. Friend is posing is not entirely real. The kind of thing he describes can happen. What I doubt is whether it must inevitably happen. What I say is that it is possible—one or two examples have been quoted—for a combination of private enterprise, sometimes voluntary, nonprofit-making effort, and help from the local authority, to bring small undertakings into being. One of the things which will encourage people to try to do that is if they know that such skilled labour as they need will be available in London. That hypothesis seems to be quite as likely as the more pessimistic hypothesis of my hon. Friend.
We need voluntary enterprise and help from the local authority. We need skilled labour. If we are to say with regard to all of those "It's no good providing them because without the others they will be no use" we shall go nowhere. I am suggesting that it would be a rewarding thing to make the opportunities for young people in London to acquire skills greater than they are. This is borne out by the experience of those young people in London who have made use of these opportunities. I attended an occasion in my own constituency concerning a small venture helping young people, particularly coloured young people, to acquire skills. This help had definitely assisted them in finding jobs.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: While I fully agree with my right hon. Friend about the problems of the shortage of skilled labour for firms starting out in London, may I ask whether he would not agree that one of the major problems is the high level of rents and the cost of land for business starting up in the central city areas? Would he accept that it might be desirable to take measures to discourage keeping property empty, whether business or residential, so that it becomes more practical for people to start business in the inner city areas? Would he welcome measures which assist that aim?

Mr. Stewart: I would. But I am trying to be good and observe your advice to us all. Mr. Speaker. While I agree with my hon. Friend, I will not pursue the matter.
My concluding point is about the government of London. I was praising, I

think justifiably, the work of the Inner London Education Authority. I hope, for goodness' sake that there will not be any more attempts to mess about with ILEA for political reasons. The great educational service of the London County Council survived the assault of the Greater London Act simply because the parents and the teachers of London rallied to our support when we were opposing the Bill in Parliament and said that they did not want to see this service torn to pieces. Now we find that Mr. Marshall—although it was clear that his sponsors set him his task in the hope that it would give them another platform on which to attack ILEA—has had to confess, although he wants to mess it about a bit, that we must not destroy this service or cut it into bits.
If I could wave a wand and bring back the world before we had the Greater London Government Bill, I would do so. It was pushed through Parliament for two main purposes. One was to try to solve the London traffic problem and the other was to see that the government of the capital was kept in Conservative hands. It has had only partial success in either of those objectives. As far as I can see, it has done no good to Londoners. I know that to try to undo a bad change in local government produces results almost as bad as the original error. Major changes in local government mean immense upheavals in people's lives, affecting the careers of all local government employees. It wastes a great deal of energy. We shall have to get along for some time with the present form of government in London. I beg that it be left alone for the time being.
That leaves the question of what ought to be the relationship to the Government and to this House. I favour the idea of a Select Committee of this House because I think—although I would be happy if we could have a Question Time as well—that such a Committee could exert more concerted and continuous pressure.
I believe, too, that Londoners must accept the fact that there are some major matters that in the capital have to be decided by the Government. I do not think that we can claim the same control over the police as a provincial city can. The Marshall idea of dividing the functions of the police into national


and London, and putting them in different hands, is a nightmare.
I think also that there are certain major decisions about transport and planning that can be made only by the Government. The important thing, therefore, is to give Londoners a quick and impressive access to the Government. If we had a large regional council for the South-East it would be far more remote than the Government themselves. A Member of Parliament is far better known to his constituents than any regional councillor or any Greater London councillor, however diligent that councillor may be.
I believe, therefore, that a Select Committee of this House to put the screws on Ministers connected with London is probably the right answer to the problem of London's relationship to the Government.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: As always in these debates about London, one finds from time to time points of quite close agreement with hon. Members opposite. I remember that on the last occasion we debated London's affairs, on the Greater London Council Bill, I found myself excessively in agreement with hon. Members opposite and in disagreement with my hon. Friends. I just happened to be taking the same view as I had always taken and everyone else seemed to be changing minds. But I will not go too far into that.
Another of the curiosities is the way we sometimes wander a little about what it is that is under discussion, although we are relating our remarks to the London scene. I had a distinct impression that this debate was supposed primarily to be about unemployment in London. There have been moments when one could have been excused for thinking that it was a debate about everything else.
I do not know whether it is the effect of those very fine posters which have been going up all over London and parts of the country recently that has suddenly brought to the minds of hon. Members opposite that perhaps they did not want to talk about unemployment after all and that they would rather talk about what a terribly bad job the Tories made in building flats in Shoreditch in 1928 and how lamentable it was that no one had

improved those flats since then, although I am reliably informed that there has been the coincidence of a Labour council in Shoreditch, a Labour council in County Hall and a Labour Government in Westminster. Yet, somehow or other, we are still back not on unemployment in London but on what the Tories did in 1928.
Indeed, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) wanted to go back rather further, to around the turn of the century, when, he said, a lot of bad things were going on. I just wonder whether, in 78 years' time, people will look back on what has been going on in these last four years and regard them as a golden age. When they look back at the sort of housing which has been built in the constituencies of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Housing and Construction, who have the cheek to refer to council housing in their constituencies as social ownership, I wonder whether those pople in 78 years' time will be any less condemning in their remarks about those who produced it than the right hon. Member for Bermondsey was harsh about those who were building houses at the turn of the century in London.
As always, as I have said, one finds things that one agrees with and things that one disagrees with. I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart). I found it difficult either to agree or disagree with him because he did not seem to say very much, and most of what he did say was self-contradictory. He seemed to think that the current population of London was just about right and showed the great wisdom of those who had been responsible for policies over the last decade or two, but on the other hand he seemed to be advocating that we should still move some more people out.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The hon. Gentleman should listen.

Mr. Tebbit: It is sometimes very difficult to listen to the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that I was the only person who was confused about it. Indeed, what he seemed to be saying was something like the policy of the Location of Offices Bureau, which is willing to advertise to people what a good thing it is to


move out of London and at the same time to advertise to others what an absolutely splendid idea it would be to move back into London.
All sorts of odd things have been said this evening. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) thought that it was very naughty of the GLC to spend money on advertising, whereas the right hon. Member for Bermondsey thought that the Department of the Environment ought to spend a bit less on something else and get down to advertising because that is what is needed, and one sometimes wished that they could get together.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey is not still in his place. He was kind enough to visit us for a few moments while he spoke and has not been seen since. He waxed lyrical about the right of his constituents to move out of Bermondsey into my constituency. We in Chingford, as I told the right hon. Gentleman, do not have any building land left, and it is extremely difficult for young couples born in Chingford to find a home there when they marry. Now the right hon. Gentleman wants to push my constituents out of Chingford to make way for his. I am standing for the right of my constituents who are council tenants in Chingford to buy their houses there to make sure that they can stay in their homes and, indeed, that they can even hand them on to their children to continue to live in Chingford.
I do not think that that is an unreasonable attitude. Indeed, as the Member for Chingford I echo the sentiments of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey, uttered in this House some time ago, on the matter of immigration "enough is enough". We have taken enough people from other parts of London, and I want to make sure that my constituents—whether they are private owners looking to the house in which their children want to live or whether they are council tenants—get a fair deal.
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey should reflect on his support for the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, which has resulted in an endless stream of people from all over the country—mid I am not even going to say from outside the country as well—turning up on the town hall steps at Bermondsey, at

Paddington and all over London, saying "I am here with my family. I am homeless, house me". Those people are putting pressure on the honest folk of Bermondsey, who in turn have to put pressure on my constituents in Chingford. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has dune a great deal to harm the interests not only of my constituents but of his own.
I turn to the subject at the heart of the debate this evening, and that is unemployment, particularly in London. I do so perhaps with an unusual background in this House, because I have represented both a new town—one of those places to which London's population was being shoved out—and a London constituency. Indeed, as the Member for Epping I represented both a part of London and a new town at the same time. So I think I understand the problems and the advantages both of syphoning people out and of maintaining a sensible and prosperous London, too.
I want to say something in rather precise terms because it is all too easy to go on about the tragedy of unemployment in generalised terms. As somebody said, when we talk about 6 per cent. unemployed we have to realise that there is nobody who is 6 per cent. unemployed. He is 100 per cent. unemployed if he is unemployed.

Mr. English: Aneurin Bevan said that.

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, indeed. The late Aneurin Bevan said a number of very sensible things. I wonder what he would have said had he been here today about a Labour Government presiding over 1½ million unemployed, and planning indefinitely for 1½ million unemployed. I should have liked to hear that speech. It would no doubt have been very much like the one that the Lord President of the Council used to make before he became a Minister.
We all know the tragedy of real unemployment, of people who desperately want to work and cannot find it. In London very many are victims of sheer misfortune. There are handicapped people and there are those who are let down by the education system. I want to come back to that in a moment.
Of course, many of them, particularly in inner London, are immigrants, or the children of immigrants. They are people who already see themselves as different


from the rest of the community. If they are unemployed for very long they will see themselves as dangerously different. As we all agree, a potent, explosive mixture will be left. Because of their background, and because many of them have an inadequate command of English, not for any reason other than that they were born out of the country or that they live in a home with parents whose command of English is inadequate, it is unlikely that they will get the top jobs. In fact, they will be looking for what we would broadly call industrial jobs—the very jobs which are most in danger of extinction in London, unless we are very careful indeed. They will not be taking jobs in some of the service industries. They will not be working in the City of London in this generation. I hope very much that in the next generation they will be, but we must fact the fact that the disadvantages which they have in this generation make it pretty unlikely for many of them.
Yet even in the scene of unemployment about which we have been talking, there are so many jobs in London which are left unfilled. I want to give some concrete examples. Earlier this month I visited in Chingford the factory of the Bissell manufacturing company. The work done there is primarily plastic moulding. The firm produces many of the goods which are sold in the Mothercare shops. It is a prosperous firm. It is a multinational, but I hope we shall not hold that against it. It is providing jobs for about 500 of my constituents.
That firm has a problem. It is impossible to recruit the unskilled labour to operate the basic moulding machines at the beginning of the factory process. The problem is that the firm cannot pay any more money to encourage people to work on those machines. It is a dull, undemanding job. The machines have to be worked on shift work. I understand that the unions object to women being used on shift work, otherwise that might be one possible way out. Most people will not accept that sort of work for the wages which can be offered under the Government's incomes policy. So we have a ludicrous situation where the employment opportunities for other workers are being throttled, because on the day that I was there I saw many machines, at £100,000 apiece, not in operation because an unskilled labourer was not obtainable. The

firm was botching along as best it could, grateful for young students who were willing to work on the machines for a few weeks during their holidays.
There we had one problem. A fortnight later I visited Lesney, the toy makers, the one firm in the motor industry into which I would put money. It was facing a slightly different problem. I was told that it had recently lost three highly skilled, valuable, well-trained toolmakers who had gone off to be milkmen. They were desperately needed by the firm. Why had they left? The incomes policy again, which made it impossible for that firm to keep those men. Their differentials had been so eroded as against those unskilled men in the same factory that they could not see why they should stay. They had lost that feeling of pride in their craft because no one was valuing it with pounds, shillings and pence. So they had gone off to flog butter and the rest of the supplies off the milk cart, and to make more money on commission than they were allowed to make practising their skilled trade. That was the second factory, again a throttling of production for the same reasons.
There is a problem on the railway line from Chingford to Liverpool Street. There are frequent cancellations because of the shortage of station staff, signalmen and drivers. I was told by British Railways that the problem was that they could offer only £60 or £70 for a junior grade signalman on shift work. Such a person would have on occasion to start work at 6 a.m. and would often have to work on Saturdays and Sundays, thus missing his football and being away from his family. British Railways could not get people to take on the work.
I will quote the immortal words which were reported to me by the manager of a factory with whom I discussed this problem. He said "I eventually got someone to come up from the labour exchange, very reluctantly. When he arrived he said to me ' Do us a favour, guv. Just say that I am not suitable, because, frankly, at £60 or £70 a week, when I am receiving £43 in benefit and making £100 in cash on the side from cleaning windows and other jobs, I cannot afford to work for you '."
That is what is happening in London. London comprises 7 million or 8 million


people, and I suspect that not very different things are happening in a number of other areas. People are refusing to take jobs because there is an insufficient differential between not working and working, and because there is an insufficient differential between skilled and unskilled work we are losing some very important people—skilled people—who are leaving factories which have a bottleneck in their production which prevents them from offering more jobs, from going out and winning more export orders.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point about the man who said that he received £43 in benefit. The difference between £43 a week in benefit and £70 a week in wages is substantial. The man was saying, in effect "I am a criminal. I am making £100 a week on the side from crime". That is not a valid argument. Criminals can get away with many things. They can rob banks and do many other things, but that is irrelevant to the argument about unemployment.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman refers to certain people as criminals. That is a harsh word which if it had been used from this side of the House would have greatly upset him. I agree that the man who said that he was earning cash on the side on which he was not paying tax and which was not subject to insurance contributions was guilty of a number of criminal practices. However, it should be remembered that the £43 which that man received in benefit was net—untaxedand that he had no travel-to-work costs. The £60 or £70 a week was gross upon which tax and national insurance contributions would be levied, and there would also be the expense of going to work every day. Even aside from the criminal aspect, there is little difference for a number of people between working and not working. That phenomenon has obtained for a long time, but the pace of the movement in that direction has been enormously increased over the past four years because of the policies which the Government have pursued.
The last visit which I will pay in this series of visits to industrialists in my constituency will be to the factory of a firm called Spring Steel Limited on Thursday. There, the managing director has called

a meeting of a number of headmasters, representatives of the borough's education department and others such as myself to discuss the problem which is affecting him. He is happy to take on youngsters leaving school and to train them in all manner of skills, in the office and on the manufacturing side of the business. He needs skilled people desperately.
What is his complaint? It is that he has never found a lower standard of educational attainment in all the years that he has been in business. He finds that before he can train a man to be a toolmaker he has to teach him to read and to be numerate. Young people leave schools supposedly educated. We find that whether they go to university, take some further education, if I may call it that, or go directly into employment, there first has to be remedial treatment because the education system has failed to turn them out sufficiently literate or numerate to do the job or to take a further stage in education.
We have a number of problems, but a great job killer in my constituency and in my borough—I suspect that the position is the same in the constituencies of most hon. Members in the Chamber—has been the rates. I have the misfortune to have a Labour-controlled borough council most of the time. It is a spendthrift authority. It is extinguishing job after job by pushing up steadily the level of rates of businesses, both manufacturing and commercial.
I think that we are all agreed that it is small firms that will provide most of the new employment as the larger firms are in capital-intensive businesses. However, small firms are being put out of business by the excessive expenditure of not only Her Majesty's Government but the town halls.
The Government's economic policies have created unemployment in Britain and London on a scale unknown since the war. On that we are all agreed. The only difference between the two sides of the Chamber is that my right hon. and hon. Friends condemn it wholeheartedly while Labour Members make excuses for it.
There are many factors apart from major Government policy that are related to unemployment in London. I have spoken about some of them and have


given some concrete practical examples. A change of Government policies and a change of Government are long overdue, but almost as important is that within any framework of Government policies we maximise the opportunities that are offered to the people.
We must give people the best possible chance of taking advantage of the available opportunities. We must seriously examine differentials, which are part of major Government policy. However, we have to give consideration to the type and quality of education that we give our school leavers before they seek work outside in the big world on which they will depend and on which we shall depend for as far ahead as we can see.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. John Cartwright: I am glad to have the opportunity of taking part in the debate. My corner of South-East London experienced the industrial decline rather earlier than many other parts of the city. We saw the departure of heavy engineering along the riverside and the closure of the docks. We saw the run-down of major utilities such as gas and electricity plants that had previously been major employers.
My constituency suffered body blows in the 1960s. There was the closure of the Royal Ordnance Factory at Woolwich Arsenal, for example. Dispersal has been mentioned, and it is only fair to say that I fight a continuing battle for the remaining 2,500 jobs at Woolwich Arsenal over which the Scottish National Party has its fingers poised. It seems to imagine that what remains of Woolwich Arsenal can be packed on a lorry and trundled up the M1 and M6 to Glasgow. That would be an extraordinarily expensive operation, and I shall do my damnedest to stop the nationalists ever coming near succeeding in doing it.
We had a major disaster in Woolwich in 1968 with the closure of the AEI plant. We saw 6,000 jobs disappear at one fell swoop. I tell the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) that that had nothing to do with nasty planners or awkward borough councils. It was the result of a straight commercial decision. Most of the manufacturing jobs along the riverside and in South-East London that have been lost have been the result of straight commercial decisions. More

money was to be made by closing the plants than by keeping them open. When we are told from time to time that the solution to London's problems is unfettered and untrammeled private enterprise, we should bear that in mind.
We tried to learn from our experiences in the 1960s. We set up the South-East London industrial consultative group on which trade unionists, employers, local authorities and Members of Parliament came together to try to make something out of the crisis that had developed. That model has been followed in other parts of London.
Greenwich was the first borough to engage an employment development officer—brought in from private industry—to try to sort out some of our industrial problems. It has not been a totally disastrous situation since that time. We have succeeded in stemming the tide and in bringing about 5,000 new jobs into the borough. Most of them are in small firms. We have not just talked about the needs of small firms; we have found them and brought them in and they are employing people in my constituency. That has been done by a Labour-controlled borough council that has given high priority to the industrial needs of the area. It has been prepared to work in partnership with private developers and to make available the sites that small firms need.
There have been a couple of problems. It has not been roses all the way. Many of the firms are not new. They have been relocated from other parts of the inner city. I think that there is a risk that, as other areas start to follow our example, some kind of cut-throat competition will develop in which all of us engage like dogs scrabbling after the available bones of employment. It is clear that we need not only to relocate footloose industry but to develop new enterprise in the inner urban areas.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) that we want a mix of opportunities. We want not only traditional private enterprise small firms but co-operative enterprises of one sort or another developed by the Co-operative Development Agency. We want more municipal enterprise as well to provide employment opportunities. Again, I hope that the National Enterprise Board will


help to provide opportunities in the public sector.
Another worrying factor, which has been mentioned twice in the debate by both sides, is the question of skills. Skilled labour is now a major problem. Not only Department of Employment officials, but firms already in my constituency are saying "If we cannot get the skilled labour that we need, we shall be in trouble and we may have to go, too."
I accept much of what was said by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) about the impact of successive waves of incomes policy. That is a problem. But there are other problems. I know of tool makers who deliver milk, sell insurance and work for the Post Office rather than use their skill. It is a question not only of money but of security. They were made redundant twice or three times, so they said "No more of that. No more engineering. I would rather be in a mundane job where I know I shall get my wages at the end of the week with no risk of the threat of unemployment."
Indeed, it is not only that generation, but the next. Such people say "My son is not going into engineering. He will not have the problems and hassle that I had. Let him work for the borough council. He can be a social worker, a civil servant, a teacher or something like that. There will be no engineering for him." It is important to recall that finance and insecurity in engineering have been major difficulties, but the skill problem is the major headache.
We need to undertake more training. Many firms which carried out their own training cannot now do it because of the other problems facing them. I thought that one of the most crazy decisions affecting my constituency was the Government's decision to close the apprentice training school at Woolwich Arsenal. That was a superb example of training for young people. It produced the high-precision engineers, tool makers and gauge makers that this country needed. That closure was one of the worst acts of official vandalism that I had ever seen. It has already been brought home to the Department of Defence which now finds that, having closed the apprentice training school, it cannot get the skilled men that it needs at Woolwich.
We have been arguing for a long time for skillcentres to try to meet the demand for skills. The Deptford skillcentre, which we were promised in 1968, we are now told may open in 1980. In the meantime, we have had two smaller skill centres at Kidbrooke and Charlton, but I am puzzled by the choice of training that is available at those centres. There is bricklaying, carpentry, motor vehicle repair and maintenance, spray painting, typewriter repair and maintenance and an occupational selection course. In an area which has always been involved in engineering, there is no engineering-geared or engineering-based training available at all. In an area which already has unemployed building workers, to produce more carpenters and bricklayers strikes me as being an unusual and hard-to-defend choice of training opportunities.
We appear to have concentrated the debate on manufacturing. Most of us, if we are honest, recognise that manufacturing will not solve the employment problems of the inner urban areas. It must be a question of manufacturing plus service and distribution industry. I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment accepted this view when he said on Second Reading of the Inner Urban Areas Bill:
We should not look just to manufacturing industry for increased employment. We also need the service industries. … It really is time to overcome some lingering prejudices against service employment."—[Official Report, 9th February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 1693.]
I understand what he meant by "lingering prejudices" because I used to have them. When I was leader of the local authority in Greenwich, I was not very keen on warehouses. I wanted manufacturing industry or nothing. We have learnt that it is not a choice between manufacturing and service or distribution. It may be service and distribution or nothing and we should be grateful for service jobs if we can get them.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Does my hon. Friend feel that this lingering prejudice also exists in the Treasury since, with a lot of Opposition support, the Treasury has been arguing that we should cut public expenditure so that we reduce the effort in service industries and put it into manufacturing? Does my hon. Friend support a re-education of the Treasury on this point as well?

Mr. Cartwright: As I come from retail trade, my hon. Friend will understand that I have been trying to re-educate the Treasury on the needs of the trade, particularly in taxation, and the Inner Urban Areas Bill in its final form gives substantial assistance to firms in service and distribution in providing jobs in the inner city.

Mr. Latham: Not in Paddington.

Mr. Cartwright: Maybe not, but Paddington is not the whole of the inner city. There are some inner city areas outside Paddington.
The need for this sort of employment is underlined by the analysis carried out in the South-East London boroughs of Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich and Bexley. We broke down their unemployment figures for December last year by trades and found, surprisingly to me, that 16·4 per cent. of the unemployed were in clerical and related occupations. A further 4 per cent. were in selling and another 6·2 per cent. in catering and related personal services—making well over one-quarter of our unemployed in these three service areas.
Among men, the clerical unemployed were the fourth largest group. The clerical group was the largest among the women, with catering second and selling fourth. Some of us were surprised that in boroughs that are so close to the centre of London we had a large concentration of clerical workers and those in related occupations who could not find work.
One of the problems is that of transport which has not been given full weight in its implications for employment. My borough has changed from being an area that provided employment for its own people to a borough that exports people to seek work elsewhere.
The Underground map of London shows how much South-East London is neglected in that basic transport provision. Occasionally journalists ring and ask to see me in Woolwich. They say that they will come down on the tube, but when they ask which is the nearest station, I have to say that it is New Cross and that they cannot get to Woolwich on the tube. My constituents have to depend on a crowded rail service where they suffer the same experiences as

does the hon. Member for Chingford. They find trains cancelled without warning because of staff shortages. They do not understand that in a situation of unemployment.
They also have to suffer the attitude of British Rail, which seems to imagine that any commuter in inner London is wealthy enough to be able to afford larger fare increases than those which are applied to those outside the London area.
If they travel by car, they face all the problems of traffic congestion. If they try to get across the river to the jobs in Essex, they are hit by the Dartford tunnel tolls, which go up virtually every other year, and they have to bear that additional burden.
If they try to go by bus, they may get to London but they have an awfully difficult job in getting home, because the buses have a delightful habit of terminating their journeys half-way and landing them for part of their evening in such unlikely places as New Cross and Black-heath.
I can, perhaps, find some agreement with some Opposition Members—although this matter has not yet arisen in this debate, I suspect that it will—when I say that there ought to be a higher priority for the River Line, the extension of London's underground system. I am sorry, in a sense, that the GLC has decided to waste large sums of public money in renaming it the Jubilee Line. But whatever we call it, it is necessary, and not just for dock-lands but for my constituents in the developing new town of Thamesmead as well.
Thamesmead was originally designed to have local employment. The 50,000or-so-people whom we were going to attract from all over London to live in Thamesmead were either to have jobs in the new town development or were to work in the neighbouring factories. Sadly, the jobs have not come with them, and most of the neighbouring factories no longer exist. This means that Thamesmead residents have long, tiring and frustrating journeys across to other parts of London, with all the implications that they have for family life and their own peace of mind.
When Thamesmead is developed, I do not believe that the existing bus and rail


system can provide for the needs of 50,000 extra people. Therefore, the additional link to the Underground is absolutely necessary.
Perhaps I may spend a moment on bus services. This is important because many of my constituents, unfortunately for them, have to depend on London Transport buses to get them to and from work. When I want to give them a really good laugh I read them that extract from the Conservative manifesto for the GLC elections, which pledged that a Tory GLC would direct London Transport to redouble its efforts to ensure that buses run on time and to cut down bunching and breakdowns. That always produces a major laugh.
I cite just two examples of bus routes serving my constituency. The 96 route runs all the way from Woolwich to Dartford. It is hardly a major safari from Woolwich to Dartford, but one can never find a 96 on its own. They always travel in stately convoy, never fewer than two at a time, and on one occasion last week six were in convoy.
The 192 route attracts regular complaints that buses are up to an hour late. London Transport has admitted to me today that there are abnormally long gaps in the service because there are not enough serviceable vehicles at New Cross garage to be able to maintain the bus schedules. That is a rather unpleasant prospect for my constituents.
This underlines the importance of reliability. Many of my constituents, and, I believe, those of other hon. Members, would be willing to pay London Transport fares and willing to have a less frequent service if it was reliable and they knew that the bus would turn up when they went out to catch it. That is not the situation now.
This is not just a subjective judgment, either. We have now the benefit of the Price Commission report published last week, which said:
Buses are the subject of most complaint about quality of service.
The report went on:
measured by waiting time, the quality has clearly fallen in recent years.
The Price Commission could not prevent the 10 per cent. fare increase because London Transport's losses were so large, but the report goes on to say:

We were aware of serious concern, not least amongst those who depend on public transport to get to work, that fares were increasing—in some cases disproportionately—while in certain areas quality of service was declining.
Against that background, I wonder very much about the ability of the Conservative-controlled GLC to hit its target for London Transport—a target which involves the halving of revenue support by the 1980s while at the same time maintaining the level of services and holding fare increases to no more than the increase in inflation. It is a very clever trick if it can be achieved, but I wonder very much whether the GLC will be able to do it. The Price Commission points out that the expected gap in 1981 is a loss of between £30 million and £40 million.

Mr. Tebbit: On the matter of bus services, if it is of any comfort to the hon. Member perhaps I may tell him that we find many of the same problems on my side of the river, too. However, I hope that he wiJ1 not imagine that these problems have arisen in just the last year or so. They are deep-seated problems that have bothered both Labour and Conservative administrations of the GLC. I hope that the hon. Member will do all that he can, even within the limits of incomes policy, to persuade any friends that he has who are involved in the trade union side that it is, indeed, better to have a lesser service but a more reliable service, as he has said, because that is part of the tactics of dealing with the problem of staff shortage at present, but the unions do not seem to see it in that light.

Mr. Cartwright: I certainly recognise the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I accept his point that these deep-seated problems cannot be laid at the door of one side or the other. But when some of us were saying that in the heat of the GLC election last year I did not hear any answering cries from the Conservatives. The difficulty is that each side in an election raises hopes that cannot always be fulfilled. My criticism of the Conservative approach to public transport in May 1977 was that it suggested that London Transport's problems could be corrected more quickly than most of us accept is possible.
Many of the problems that I have mentioned are extremely deep seated. They need more careful thought than some of the superficial approaches we have seen from County Hall. We need from County Hall less gimmickry, fewer press releases and a good deal more careful thought and deliberate concentration on solving employment and related problems in Greater London.

11.52 p.m.

Sir George Young: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) down some of the tangled bus routes in South East London, and I hope that he will forgive me for not doing so. I wish to respond to your injunction to be brief, Mr. Speaker, and to make two points, one general and one specific.
It is a sobering commentary on how the affairs of London have been managed that 52 per cent. of Londoners now want to move, whereas only 28 per cent. of those questioned elsewhere in the country display a similar restlessness. Of those Londoners who wish to move from inner London 33 per cent. want to live in a town not far from the capital, 30 per cent. want to live in the suburbs, and 16 per cent. want to live in the countryside. Only 5 per cent. of those questioned want to live in inner London. As a result 350,000 people a year are leaving London to move to a more attractive environment.
That must be at the heart of the problem we are discussing. The politicians and the planners have contrived to produce an environment within which people simply do not want to live. The moment they are free to escape from it, they do so, and they move to areas with better schools, better homes and better transport. It is this voluntary dispersal that has given rise to fears of a social imbalance in inner London, fears of a growing crime rate as only the well-off and the poor are left behind, fears about the pressures on social services as they have increasingly to cater from more elderly and poorer people, fears about the alienation of young West Indians, and about the whole threat to the rate base in London. We must address the major problem of making London an attractive place in which people will want to live.
Three basic human errors lie behind what is going wrong. These are muddle,

indecision and delay by those responsible for planning London. Basically we have identified the problems of London far too late and, having done that, we have moved to solutions far too late. Some solutions have been totally wrong, such as the tower blocks which are now admitted to be a mistake. Other solutions might have been right or wrong, but we have not persevered with them and so we do not know. No one will know whether it would have been right, for example, to build one complete ring road in London because we stopped half-way through. Other solutions were probably right—such as bus-lanes—but we have not enforced them.
There is a whole range of problems for which we have found no solutions. These include the docklands, Piccadilly, Covent Garden and Soho, large tracts of London where the planners and the politicians simply have not agreed on what should be done. The inconsistencies hit us when we look at redevelopment schemes where we have closed down factories and then denied builders permission to construct offices or warehouses to help replace the jobs that the planners have lost. As jobs in London have shrunk, we have accelerated this by exporting jobs to prosperous areas such as Reading and Southend, and we have exported even more jobs to the assisted areas, many of which do not face the same structural problems as parts of London.
We have to recognise that many of London's problems are self-induced and that we simply cannot blame the Government for all of them. I do not think that London needs additional resources from the taxpayer or any help at all. The wealth is here and the potential is here. The problem is that we have not used it.
As for tourism, the assets which people come to see—the Tower of London, this building, St. Paul's, Buckingham Palace—are all free. There is no charge at all. The tourist pays the hotels, most of which are owned by companies from overseas. The car-hire firms are mainly internationally based companies. The actual wealth from our tourist industry is not harnessed for the benefit of London and Londoners. Likewise, a large number of people work in London but do not live here, and one might expect them to make


a greater contribution to solving London's financial problems. There are acres and acres of undeveloped land which we have not used.
I do not accept the argument that London is the victim of a conspiracy by Government. I think that the problems are largely self-induced. That is in a way encouraging, because it means that the answers are also self-induced, and not wholly dependent on Government good will.
At the root of it is the failure of the planners and politicians to agree. They do not really understand each other. Planners have their own particular language, which I do not understand. They do not call a home a home. They call it an accommodation unit. They do not call a garden a garden. They call it a private open space. They do not call a job a job. They call it an employment opportunity. As a result, politicians have a deep mistrust of planners, who speak this language of their own. Planners seem to be over-ambitious and they do not recognise the resource implications of some of their plans. As a result, they tend to go for grandiose schemes which simply cannot be implemented.
On the other hand, politicians overreact to short-term problems and change long-term plans that might be quite good ones, particularly at election time, and they are vulnerable to U-turns. When one is trying to produce a long-term structure plan for London, one cannot afford too many U-turns. We need a basic and modest agreement on goals, a commitment to implement them by the three levels of Government which are responsible, and an assurance that the resources are actually there.
We should—as the hon. Member for Woolwich, East indicated—encourage in London those jobs that we are good at doing and stop trying to tempt back heavy manufacturing industry. Nothing will get heavy manufacturing or engineering industry back into London, and it is a waste of time to try, but we need more offices. Offices, after all, are the factories of tomorrow. If we talk to this year's school leavers—particularly the girls—we find that they do not want to work in factories. They want to work in offices. There is no reason why we should not provide them with the jobs they want.
We should spend more time in trying to attract the head offices of the major international companies to set up in London. We spend a lot of time in tempting tourists, who spend a lot of money, but it is a much better investment to attract the head offices of big companies and get them to set up in London and invest in jobs and in buildings here. The Swiss Government and the Austrian Government have invested a lot of effort in trying to get that sort of company to their countries. We do very little of that by comparison with them.
There should be a modest agreement on our objectives, a concentration on what we do best, and a determination to use the assets that we have, particularly land, and to make sure that the assets are used and the energy harnessed to tackle the problems of London.
I want to turn briefly to a piece of special pleading which will come as no surprise to the House in a debate perhaps shortly before an election, and particularly from a Member for a constituency which has had six Members of Parliament in 20 years. It is nice to see two of them in the Chamber at the moment. Like other parts of inner London, Acton has in many ways had a very raw deal. Tightly knit communities have been destroyed and replaced by rather large and soulless council estates. The town hall has closed and moved down the road to Ealing. There is a question mark over the future of the cottage hospital—a problem shared by many of my colleagues. There is talk of the closure or transfer of services of the police station. Churches are being knocked down to make way for housing schemes. All the cinemas have closed, and Queen's Park Rangers have had two very bad seasons. As a result, many familiar institutions with which the community identify have disappeared or are threatened in the name of progress, and people do not like it.
In Acton, as elsewhere, we can cope if the basic prosperity is maintained, and this is where I turn to Park Royal, which is the major industrial estate in North-West London. The economy of Ealing and, indeed, of Brent, is dependent on the prosperity of Park Royal. If the Government's strategy for the inner cities is to mean anything, it must mean that Park


Royal should be designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act. I hope that an announcement will be forthcoming tomorrow or the day after from the Department of the Environment saying that Park Royal will qualify for aid under the legislation.
In the last nine years, the number of people working in Park Royal has fallen from some 45,000 to 34,000. That is a loss of a quarter of the working population in a short time. What is more, there are 2·2 million square feet of empty space and, in addition, 23 acres of derelict land. The local economies depend on that area being revitalised and more jobs forthcoming.
My request is a very modest one. I ask for designation under the Act, and of course there is already a sum of money for that purpose in the Government's Estimates.
My second and even more modest claim is for a short spur from the North Circular Road to the Park Royal estate to improve access. A very comprehensive survey has been done entitled "Park Royal: The Area Today", by Ealing and Brent councils. They identify access as one of the key problems arresting development. It is ideally situated between the M1 and the M4, on the M40 and close to London airport. It is essential to the economy of North-West London that the full potential of that area be restored.
So I hope that the Minister can give the people who live in Ealing—and I am sorry that the hon. Members representing Ealing constituencies are not in the Chamber—some assurance by designating Park Royal under the Inner Urban Areas Act.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Latham: May I take up the reference by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) to Park Royal and enter a similar plea for Paddington? There are a number of areas in London which are not in partnership schemes or in designated areas. I do not know whether the situation in Acton is like that in Westminster, but the problem there is that although large parts of Paddington clearly would be eligible for such designation, when it is lumped together with neighbouring South West-

minster and Marylebone, if the option is partnership or designation for the whole of Westminster, it is not on. There may be a similar problem with Acton. I believe that there are some parts of London where it would be possible to link together areas which at present are excluded from inner city provision.
I am worried about whether this debate will provide the forum that is needed. It may be that what my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) said earlier about a Select Committee provides a possible answer. Last week, after the new type of Standing Committee which dealt with the South-East Regional Study, most of us left feeling that it had not been the opportunity that we would have liked for an even fuller discussion of and, perhaps more important, recognition of London's problems.
There is little hope from the GLC at the moment. It is playing politics with council house sales and with the Marshall inquiry and the Marshall report. There seems to be little recognition there of the special role needed for London. But one of the problems is not that a Select Committee should "put the screws on Ministers", but that there is a need on the part of London Members to make a great number of our non-London colleagues aware of the problems which now afflict the capital city.
It is possible to have a quite false impression of London by travelling from a non-London constituency to Westminster and the immediate environs without forming an appreciation of what the rest of London is like. One need not go to the East End of London or even as far as Park Royal. One could deviate very slightly between Heathrow and Westminster and take a trip to Paddington. The Palace of Westminster, Buckingham Palace, the Mall and Mayfair are all in the area of the same London borough—the City of Westminster—as my own constituency. One could find not much greater contrast or not much greater existence of double standards than is to be observed when one sees the state of street cleansing, refuse collection and the general standard which rightly is maintained in the showpiece of London, while the residential and working-class area of the City of Westminster is neglected. London is very much like


that. We are afflicted with double standards.
I had occasion recently to accompany a deputation of the Greater London Association of Trades Councils, the Greater London Labour Party and the South-East Regional Council of the TUC to talk to an Environment Minister and also to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, who is to reply to this part of the debate. But what is lacking is the presence of my hon. Friends from non-London constituencies. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) was listening to the earlier part of the debate. But I wonder how London Members gathered here at this hour, at this stage of the parliamentary Session on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill can get this message across.
I do not know whether it would be in order for me to invite you, Mr. Speaker, to take a trip to Paddington. It may be that you are aware of the wider problems of London.

Mr. Speaker: Paddington is the most desirable part of London for every Welshman. It is the way home.

Mr. Latham: I am grateful for that, Mr. Speaker. That exemplifies my point. It is rather similar to the plight of Harwich, where people arrive in the country or are leaving it. Similarly with the metropolis, if there is a main line terminus, it very often happens that it is just the way in or the way out, with little regard to the environs around it. Somehow we have to get people to make that excursion to see what the rest of London is like.
According to the South-East Strategic Study, we have in London half the homelessness of the whole country. Although our unemployment statistic is distorted by its inclusion in the South-East, we have very substantial pockets in London which are as bad almost as the worst in the country. There is evidence, looking at the capital as a whole, of a very extensive social deprivation, and decay is occurring in many areas much faster than even the prospect, let alone the pace, of regeneration.
We talk about the loss of manufacturing industry, and, in reply to an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) defended services. But the difficulty for school leavers in my constituency and many others is that there is not the range of jobs, quite apart from the number of jobs, available. If we are to have a London which can offer only service occupations, I wonder whether it will provide the right opportunities for the very large numbers of present and future school leavers.
The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) referred to the relocation policy. It may be that I have it wrong. I understood that the authorities had seen the light and that we were seeing a halt to the relocation policy, which should probably have occurred at least 10 years ago, when we were still bribing people to move out and take jobs there. But we still have not seen the light in terms of Civil Service dispersal, and this again makes the point about the attitude of non-London Members. On a number of occasions, I have pressed that we should try to retain jobs in London, but always there is indignation and wrath on the part of provincial Members who would be at the receiving end of the jobs to be moved out of London. Therefore, I believe that one of the major obstacles to a proper appreciation of the problems of London, and thus to proper action to deal with them, is achieving the understanding of our colleagues.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: As a non-London Member who took part in the debate on the South-East Strategy, I may say that many non-London Members appreciate the problem to which the hon. Gentleman has referred about the dispersal of jobs. But we should like to be reassured about the extent to which many Labour Members would welcome the productive exercise of private enterprise in encouraging people to expand job opportunities in central London. In many non-London areas we are not convinced that hon. Members give enough encouragement in that respect.

Mr. Latham: That is something of a myth. In certain parts of the country and certain parts of London the Government have been prepared to give assistance to


encourage and promote the creation and development of small businesses. I am again at a disadvantage, as with the situation in Park Royal, because Paddington is not designated, and we do not benefit there. What was shown in the debate on the Greater London Bill is that there is the feeling that London will grab something at the expense of non-London areas. That feeling is justified if people are unaware of the extent to which the problems have developed in London.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham talked about depopulation and appeared to defend decisions taken in the past two decades. One of the problems of depopulation is that there has been a two-way migration. Many people have come into London believing that there are opportunities quite different from those which actually exist. What was never planned or thought out was the effect on local communities of depopulation, of the rundown of shops and the consequent closures of schools and even hospitals, which gives a general feeling of decay and community despair.
I am anxious that there should be central co-ordination of what all the Departments are doing. We could easily list employment, industry, trade, education and the environment. But one Department seems to work independently, without regard to all the social factors. That is the Department of Health and Social Security, in the matter of hospital closures, which may have some justification in terms of National Health Service economies but do not properly take account of the disastrous effects on local communities when a whole industry of that kind is closed down in a particular locality.
There is one other factor to which I feel obliged to draw attention on behalf of my own constituency and some others. The hon. Member for Chingford talked of those whose desire it would be to live in central London and the fact that some poorer people might in effect be driven out. The driving out is certainly happening in Paddington and areas like it. But those people will not be able to afford to live in Chingford. The consequences of the pressures of higher rents, both residential and commercial, will continually drive more and more people out of those central London areas.
There are already complaints about the kind of labour available to industries that might develop. If the social mix is thrown into even worse imbalance, the consequences for employment for developing industry will be worse still.
I hope that in a new Session or a new Parliament there will be a response to the need to place London more positively on the parliamentary agenda. It has been suggested that there might be a London Question Time and that we might have a Select Committee. I am not sure what the consequences of Scottish and perhaps Welsh devolution will be, whether there will still be the same Question Time for each of those parts of the United Kingdom, whether there will still be Grand Committees which can consider their affairs. I believe that the situation we have reached in London requires some special provision of that kind.
I hope that over the coming months we shall be able to persuade non London Members to recognise the problem and not always to be jealous of London and to imagine that everything is fine in the capital city. It is in their wider interest, as well as that of London, that they should take that view, because they have to recognise that it is their capital city as well as ours.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Roger Sims: I am sure that it is right that we should do all that we can to encourage industry to remain in London or to return to it. But, equally, we should take all steps not to discourage commerce. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) referred to the need for office work in London. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) referred to the relatively high proportion among the unemployed of those seeking clerical vacancies. In an effective contribution to our debate earlier my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) referred to office development permits and the effect that they have had on office development in London.
The trouble with the ODP system that it not only affects physical control of offices, but, by limiting the supply of offices at a time when there has been increased demand, it puts up the rents of those offices. The result has inevitably been that many companies have moved


out of London altogether. Far from office accommodation coming into London, firms have moved out of London into the surrounding country, depriving Londoners of an important source of jobs. It seems most important that the whole operation of the ODP system be reviewed, if not abolished.
That is not the only policy leading to jobs leaving London. It is extraordinary that at a time when London has a male unemployment rate of well over 5 per cent. as against a national figure of 6 per cent.—and with very much higher figures in parts of London—the Government are not simply doing too little to produce employment but are actually planning to export jobs from London and create unemployment.
I refer to the Hardman plans for dispersal, to which reference was made earlier, particularly in a vigorous contribution by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). He referred to the fact that jobs were being exported from London. The Hardman proposals do more than that, because only some of the workers are being moved from London. Some of the various institutions which it is proposed to move will not take their workers with them. They will simply be left here without jobs. It is an extraordinary attitude that is displayed in this plan to disperse 30,000 civil servants from London. One of the proposals is to move to Glasgow the office of the defence codification centre, situated in Mottingham, a few yards from my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). This is an establishment which employs a number of our constituents. There are 300 staff there, of whom 150 are classified as mobile, with 150 non-mobile.
There are many arguments against moving this centre. One is obviously the accessibility of Mottingham to the Ministry in London. Another is the ease with which people based at Mottingham can get into touch with contractors in various parts of South-East England. In any event, the bulk of the work is shortly to be computerised with a computer centre situated in Devon so that the work, using computer terminals, could be done virtually anywhere. There is a case, if a case has to be made, for moving the Motting-

ham centre to the Ministry of Defence centre in Woolwich, which I am sure would please the hon. Member for Woolwich, East. But to move it right out of London makes no sense. The proposal, however, is to shift the whole thing up to Glasgow at a cost which is completely unspecified but which must inevitably run into millions of pounds.
The point of this matter in the context of the debate is that 150 of these people are non-mobile, so they do not have to move with the centre; they do not want to move and indeed they will not move. The Minister tells me in a letter that of course none of these people will be made redundant by the move. But exactly how that problem is to be got over he does not explain. Perhaps more jobs are to be manufactured, which seems to he a self-defeating exercise, but I suspect that that statement is just concealing the truth—that in fact those 150 people will finish up as unemployed. It really does seem an absolutely crazy scheme. Yet today my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West has been advised by the Secretary of State for Defence that he has reconsidered the situation and that he confirms the intention to make the move.
Another similar move is the one to which the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and others have referred—to shift the laboratory of the Government chemist from his constituency to Cumbria. A number of my constituents work at the laboratory. Again, there are many arguments against this proposal. I have deployed them in correspondence with the Minister and have gone right through to having an Adjournment debate on the issue, but without success. Just one of the arguments is that about 100 of the staff at the laboratory are non-mobile. They will not move, and would not be entitled to move in the normal way, and if the move goes through they will be out of a job. The nation will lose their particular skills and abilities and they will be added to the register of unemployed. All of this will be at a cost to the taxpayer which the right hon. Member for Bermondsey estimated at £20 million, although I have heard figures as high as £30 million.
It seems crazy that this scheme should be insisted upon simply because a decision was taken at Cabinet level at some


stage. The Hardman report was published in 1973 on the basis of figures brought out in 1972. The circumstances are now very different, and the Government should think again about these proposals.
Amongst the changed circumstances is the decline in industry not only in inner London but in the suburbs such as my own. The Cray Valley, which runs through not only my constituency but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), a few years ago was lined with flourishing factories employing hundreds of local people. Now most of those buildings either lie empty or are housing carpet or furniture stores. All credit to firms such as the small one that I visited this morning. It manufactures paper-making machinery. Despite all the obstacles of Government economic policies and legislation which discourages such firms from taking on labour, it has extended its premises and provided extra jobs for local people, doing it from its own resources. But, alas, far too few enterprises are able to do that sort of thing at present.
They are looking for a new approach to revitalise industry in London. They now have that new approach at the local level from County Hall. They are looking for a similar new approach from central Government level, a change which, for London's sake and the country's, will, I hope, come very soon.

12.24 a.m.

Miss Jo Richardson: I am glad of the opportunity, which the Labour Members of the House have afforded, to discuss the problems of London. We have had a useful debate with a certain measure of agreement on both sides of the House.
I am reminded that the last time Labour Members initiated a debate on London matters on the Consolidated Fund Bill was about two years ago. The debate started at about 2 a.m. and finished at about 5 a.m. It looks, from the rate at which we are going, that this debate might not finish much earlier. I recall that it was on that occasion, due, no doubt, to the passionate fervour of London Members, that at 3.45 a.m. Big Ben stopped. It is not often that the strength of feeling on a subject stops the clock, but stop the clock it did that night, and

I dare say that some of the things that were said had something to do with that.
It is obvious from what has been said this evening that a large number of London Members are interested and able enough to remain and take part in this debate, and I think that we are all conscious of the fact that since that last debate a couple of years ago, when we talked in similar terms about the rundown of London, very little has been done to halt that rundown, and that in a sense we are today having the same debate all over again.
A lot has been said this evening—and I shall not go over it again—about the rundown in manufacturing industry—industry which is so essential to our economy. Until a few years ago, in my constituency of Barking there was virtually no unemployment, and by comparison with other boroughs in the London area we have very little now. We are fortunate in this respect. We have some unemployment, and we are always looking over our shoulder, particularly to the west to the London boroughs of Newham and Tower Hamlets where the level of unemployment is roughly twice the national figure, and hoping that it will not creep towards us, because we do not live in isolation.
However, in the last few weeks in Barking difficulties have arisen. One firm has moved its employees to South Wales. Another couple of small firms have packed up altogether. Yet another has announced that at the end of November it expects to close. This firm is the offshoot of an American multinational and as far as I can find out the reason for the closure is the lack of investment in this industry by the American parent company, which has resulted in the British operation becoming uncompetitive.
We are looking over our shoulder all the time and not wanting unemployment to reach us. My Labour council has been extremely good over the years. It considers employment to be part of its social concern for the borough and is most anxious always to encourage employers to come into the borough and to give them every possible help.
One of the problems of creeping unemployment in my borough is that there are a large number of women workers there. In the factory to which I referred,


about 80 per cent. of the employees are women who have worked there for 10 to 15 years, on average. Many people in London say that women work for put-money and it is not all that important if they do not retain their jobs or if they are not replaced, but the money earned by semi-skilled women who work in factories of the type that I have described has become part of the family income The income of the wife, together with the income of the husband, forms the family income, and when the wife ceases to work and there are no alternative jobs for her the income is virtually halved and the family suffers as a result. Although much attention has been paid during the debate this evening to the skills of men in the engineering industry, I think that we must take into account the effect of unemployment on women.
In addition to the creeping unemployment in Barking, about which I am becoming increasingly concerned, we are, though not one of the boroughs which form London's docklands, an area which has a number of residents who are dockers and are part of the dock labour force. The prospect of the Port of London shrinking or, worse, packing up, is something which will be a nasty blow not only to the immediately surrounding boroughs of docklands but to boroughs which stretch further out beyond London. Of course, many dockers live further out of Greater London, some of them as far away as Essex.
While we welcomed the recent statement of the Secretary of State for Transport that the Royal group must not close, there were some aspects of that statement—about the acceptance of the employers' recommended stategy—about which I was a bit concerned. It seemed to me that it overlooked the fact that the recommended strategy itself involves a further closure of some of the docks in the upper river. It makes me reflect what a pity it is that our Labour Government did not take the docks into public ownership some years ago. Many years ago we said that we would do so, and we still have not done it. I still think that this is something about which we ought to make a commitment for the next Labour Government.
What a pity it is, too, that we make such little use of the whole of the River Thames. If one looks at the use which

the French make of the River Seine, or the Germans of the Rhine, or the Austrians of the Danube, one is given a lesson in how those countries put their rivers to work. That is even more sad when one looks at the River Thames today.
We are always talking about road congestion, particularly on some of the very narrow roads which go right the way through London, yet we always seem to overlook the fact that the River Thames is the widest road in London. At the present time it is the widest, quietest, cheapest and emptiest road in London. By taking one tug and four barges up the River Thames one could take 100 juggernauts off the roads which go alongside that river.
A year or two ago, I was able to go up the river on a tug which towed cement barges. During that three-hour trip, I was able to reflect how many lorry loads of cement we were carting behind the tug. What a difference it would make to the congested roads of London if we made a much greater use of the river than we do today.
What we need in London is a stable and viable Port of London, not just for the security of the jobs in the docks but for the security of employment in East London and Essex generally. We shall be rebuilding the area's infrastructure with about £180 million spent over four years on the docklands plan. The closure of any part of the remaining docks would certainly undermine the carrying out of that docklands plan, because other jobs will be lost. There are the corner shops, the pubs and the people who work in the schools. If there is a further rundown of East London we shall get the complete decay and ruin of what is already working towards decay in that area.
Several references have been made to the question of how one experiments with docklands. We all know that some Conservatives see it as a haven for free enterprise capitalism. I think that is a crazy idea. If one simply takes off all planning controls, all one does is let in the property speculators. What kind of employment will that produce for the people who are starved of jobs and all the social and evironmental things which go with them?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) referred to the


grandiose plan put forward by Mr. Horace Cutler for making docklands a stage for the 1988 Olympic Games. What utter nonsense that is! Mr. Cutler should go down to the East End and hear what people think about his plan. They do not need big, beautiful modern stadiums. They need houses and secure jobs.
We need proper development of industry on land which is not needed for dock operations, and that should be done in conjunction with the local authorities so that the Government, the employers and the local authorities are involved in formulating a common strategy for restoring employment and life to those parts of East London which have become so deprived. That involves giving greater responsibilities to the local community and co-ordinating local and national government policies. The Government have a great chance to help this part of London, and I hope that they will take the opportunity of helping it.
This afternoon I picked up a press release from the Manpower Services Commission which was embargoed for publication before 3 p.m. on Tuesday 1st August. This interesting document discusses help for unemployed people and gives details of this year's plan which the chairman, Mr. Richard O'Brien, gave in a press release. It principally concerns the youth opportunities programme and the special temporary employment programmes.
An appendix to the press release shows the planning budgets for the youth opportunities scheme and the special temporary employment programmes for the various regions. Much has been said tonight about the level of unemployment in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) said that there were more unemployed in London than there were in Scotland. The planning budget for Scotland under the youth opportunties scheme is £21·5 million and that for greater London £8·1 million. The planning budget for the special temporary employment programme for Scotland is £5·3 million and that for Greater London is £3·9 million. That is what the debate is all about. If we are all saying that London needs special attention, I should have thought that in budgeting for opportunities for youth and for special temporary employment opportunities, London should re-

ceive a much greater share of the cake than apparently we are to receive.

12.38 a.m.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I congratulate unreservedly the hon. Lady the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson), and indeed her hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), on having initiated this debate, which I personally have greatly enjoyed and found very interesting.
In addition to being grateful for your skill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of Mr. Speaker before you, in selecting Members on this side of the House who have alternated between outer London and inner London, which I think has made for a happy contrast, I am glad to have caught your eye because it enables me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) and the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) in being the third Member from the City of Westminster to speak in this debate. I think we are the only local authority in London which has had all three of its representatives speaking on this occasion, and indeed one could throw in the City of London as well.
The debate is entitled "employment" rather than "unemployment". I speak in it as somebody who represents a constituency where approximately 1 million people come into work every day. One of my concerns is that the centre of our city and my constituency should remain as residential as possible.
A study was recently carried out by MIT on behalf of the Shell Oil Company in the United States on job loss throughout the country. The study determined that while there was no correlation between large companies or small companies in terms of lost jobs—it was found that they lost them equally—it was noticeable that it was through small companies that job gain was occurring throughout the United States. The significant feature was that job gain was occurring in areas where there was disposable income to spend. That is one of the reasons that leads me to regard it as so important that the centre of our city should remain resided in.
Having lived not so long ago in New York City, I am conscious of the desert and wilderness that the centre of a great city becomes if it is not inhabited. I


speak with a spirit of optimism. After a falling electoral register in my constituency for most of the 1970s, in the past couple of years I have at least begun to see the register rise again. I think that the same is true of the constituency of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright). Numbers are increasing in central London rather than decreasing.
The title of the debate has three subheadings—environment, industry and transportation. I shall speak briefly under the three headings and use them as a structure for my speech. I was chosen in the Ballot for item no. 37, a debate on the private rented sector. The Under-Secretary of State and I reached agreement to discuss the matter at some other time of the week. I do not want to take another bite of the cherry by discussing it tonight, except to say that it will be eminently desirable if we can reach a bipartisan position on the private rented sector for the very reason indicated in the evening papers for yesterday and today—namely, the secretarial shortage in central London and the crucial role that the private rented sector plays in providing flexible accommodation to enable girls to live close to their work in the heart of the city.
The issue raised in the context of the environmental aspect of the problem is a separate one that relates especially to my constituency, and that is the attitude that the present Minister for Housing and Construction at the Department of the Environment has about densities and the densities that he is prepared to allow in central London. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is influenced by the circumstances in which he grew up during his childhood in proposing that the densities in central London should be the same as those in outer London.
This is not the place to engage in an intellectual discussion about the design of cities, and I do not propose to do so. I am conscious that there were 250 people living in Lancaster Court, Mayfair, in my constituency in the eighteenth century and that there are now only four residents. As recently as 1808 there were 193,000 people in the City of London. I am happy that those numbers have fallen and that we are not living in the density

in the centre of the city as in the eighteenth century, but I have a fear. Conventional wisdom has rightly been that tower blocks are inappropriate and that redevelopment is less desirable than rehabilitation. Those are good things. However my fear is that the Minister for Housing and Construction on densities in inner cities has become paralysed by the fear that he might be committing some such mistake as tower blocks and redevelopment.
In Soho and Covent Garden, both of which were referred to in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), a view is taken totally different from that taken by the Minister. I mean no disrespect to my constituents in Soho and Covent Garden—my remarks are intended to be complimentary—when I say that they tend to be unconventional as against following conventional wisdom. Inner cities are different.
I have quoted elsewhere in the Palace the remark of C. S. Lewis that if we hear about somebody going around doing good to others we can recognise the others by their hunted look. There is considerable resentment in Soho and Covent Garden at the kind of densities on which the Minister is insisting. Speaking as a democrat, I believe that people matter and that they should have the right to help to make that decision. I join my constituents in that area in resenting the figures being imposed by the Minister of Housing and Construction.
The Soho Housing Association has done an outstanding job, particularly of a conservationist nature, in bringing back eighteenth century houses into use. Frankly, I think that despair had begun to set in. I hope that it can be freed to do even more in that neighbourhood where political views on this issue are bipartisan.
Another aspect of the environmental considerations on which I should like to spend a little time, as have other hon. Members, is the rate support grant. I am encouraged that we have made progress in the last year or so. A council tenant on the Millbank estate in my constituency is now getting to the stage where he is paying the same rates for the same accommodation as would, for instance, a similar council tenant in Greenwich. I find it encouraging that


he is not paying a differential rate because he is living in the centre of the city in similar accommodation.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Paddington would agree, but I find considerable resentment among ratepayers in my constituency that the services provided in what he described as the "grand" areas of the city of Westminster that go to help tourism are paid for substantially by ratepayers within the city who are not necessarily direct beneficiaries of tourism.
I am concerned that we should not get into the situation that New York City got into when about 50 out of the "Fortune 500" companies moved north into West Chester County and Fairfield County and another 50 moved south on to the New Jersey shore. At the moment 100 of "The Times 1,000" companies continue to have their headquarters in my constituency. I hope that they will not be driven out because of the rates that they have to pay, as that would contribute to the sense of isolation and wilderness in the centre.
Rates in the City of London have in fact gone up faster than rents during the 1970s. I should be alarmed if that rise in rates had the effect of driving people out of the City of London. One of the major forces provided by the City of London in terms of employment is its comprehensive and compact business community, everyone being within walking distance of each other and very much interdependent. If people start to leave the City of London because rates have been rising so fast, that business community will begin to deteriorate.
The second item under this second subtitle is industrial. By definition there is little manufacturing in my constituency. But I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) and his hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East say that services should be treated in the same way as manufacturing in the inner urban areas.
The one area to which this industrial classification applies in my constituency is Soho. I am thinking particularly of the craft activities which have gone on there for many generations. Some people think of Soho fundamentally as an entertainment area and are inclined to snigger

about it. But to the west of that entertainment area through to Regent Street a large number of crafts and trades are still carried on.
When Prince Philip visited the Soho Society recently—and I give him full marks for the imagination and courage he showed in making that visit—it was moving to see the people in the room wearing badges showing their names and the trades they performed—gun-maker, lace-maker, violin-maker, tailor and so on.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone and other hon. Members have referred to the Clerkenwell Workshops. There is a similar scheme in Rotherhithe which was mentioned on the radio the other day. I hope that we can find an imaginative instrument for financing the development of mixed-use activity in areas such as Soho where commerce and housing can go side by side. It is difficult to find conventional financial institutions that are prepared to underwrite that sort of scheme and it would be a breakthrough if we could find an instrument that would provide the finance. I say that in the context of Soho and those crafts because I think that the livery companies in the City would be prepared to support such imaginative developments.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what he has advocated is contrary to the arguments of most of his hon. Friends who have been against intervention of the order he has mentioned? Is he advocating greater public expenditure for this purpose?

Mr. Brooke: We do not need a major infusion of funds. I am talking about a scheme that is similar in urban terms to the immense success of COSIRA in rural terms where the return for relatively small injections of public money is considerable. I am thinking of that in urban circumstances. The trades and crafts are remarkably similar and interchangeable in various parts of the country.
The third sub-heading is transport. It is not for me to speak about commuters, though many of the 1 million people who work in my constituency come in from outside. It has been encouraging to see the energy with which Sir Peter Parker has been attacking this problem since


he became chairman of British Rail. Anyone who has listened to his speeches in Greater London in the past year will have been encouraged by the attack he has shown.
It is a truism within London Transport that the Tube is easier to manage than are the buses. Curiously, five times as much money—on a proportionate basis—has been spent on modernising the Paris Metro as we have available for the Underground.
Bus breakdowns have been referred to in the debate. It is encouraging that London Transport has been able to get together with the manufacturers to collaborate on the design of buses and it looks as though maintenance will be much better than it has been recently.
In the context of my central constituency, I should like to refer to one other form of transport that has not yet been mentioned—the taxi cab trade. The number of taxi cabs has risen from about 9,000 to about 12,000 during the 1970s. That is an inadequate increase to cope with the extra traffic—particularly tourist traffic—that has been generated during that time. Tourists make frequent use of cabs for obvious reasons. The shortage of cabs militates against employment in central London and clearly the number will not rise unless the Government, in terms of pricing policies, provide some incentive to increase the number on the road.

12.54 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I shall not follow the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) into central London topics because I wish to concentrate what I have to say on the Port of London. The Port of London is central to London's employment and to London's development, and of course, it was the port that caused London to exist in the first place.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), referring to two former Members for Acton in this Chamber, mentioned conventional wisdom which has been abandoned. He mentioned tower blocks. He mentioned the movement out of London of all industries and activities which were not central to a capital city. That was the policy of the GLC up to about 1973. He also mentioned ringways.
All those three policies have been reversed. If I remember correctly—although I am not making a party point particularly—at one time or another those policies were espoused by the Conservative Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "And by you."] Not personally, although the Labour Party may have gone along with one or two of them in parts.
However, the point to which I am now coming is that I think that the Conservative Party may be about to make a mistake about the Port of London. Conservatives may not have finally made up their minds, but the writings of spokesmen in the newspapers this evening may suggest that they are going down the wrong track.
This morning's edition of The Times contained an interesting leading article entitled:
Backing down on the docks.
It says:
London docks can probably never be profitable again unless the upper docks—the Royal group and the India-Millwall complex—are closed down. Trade has irrevocably moved downstream. The cost of the unprofitable upper docks has eaten away Port of London Authority reserves which could better have been devoted to modernisation.
This is the sort of case that the PLA is putting out in various press efforts, I imagine, or has done in the past. It is the sort of echo that is passed on from one person to the next. But I challenge it as being not only unwise but also inaccurate.
The PLA, in response to a request from me, published figures about the losses of the upper docks. They show that excluding central costs—I want to make that clear—the total income for the Royal docks in 1977 was £23 million There was a loss of £4 million on that operation, excluding central administrative costs.
I shall not say that that is not unfortunate or that it is not bad. But a £4 million loss on a £20 million turnover is not as catastrophic as is made out in leading articles and by various people. It is not catastrophic when considered against the losses in reserves which the PLA puts forward in its annual accounts. They show that the cost of restructuring—£4·9 million—was almost as great.
Therefore, in debating employment in Greater London, and taking account of


environmental, industrial and transportation factors, we must bear in mind that the future of the upper docks is very central indeed.
The first thing that we must look at is the responsibility of the PLA itself. How far is it concerned only with making a profit or keeping itself commercially viable, as has been the assumption up until now, and what are its other duties? The Port of London Act 1968 says in the preamble:
The Port of London Authority were established for the purpose of administering, preserving and improving the port of London and for other purposes".
There has been a great deal of criticism on the PLA management. I shall not claim that dockers are angels or always have been angels. But nor, I think, would anyone else claim that managers have been saints. There is a good deal of disquiet in the whole of East London about the way in which the PLA has discharged its responsibility of preserving the totality of the port. There is a lot of disagreement about it.
I must say, however, that Sir John Cuckney, the new chairman, has brought perhaps a new attitude to port administration. But, of course, he has to face decades of divine right—at least, the sort of divine right attitude that the PLA has had over many years. It means that a lot of ground must be gone over to regain the practical side of affairs.
One of the biggest criticisms of the PLA—one hears it of industry generally where closures are mooted—is that the situation demands practical men who know what the business is about, not just the accountants and solicitors who are imported to provide a macro-economic judgment that fails to take account of the details.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) mentioned the river highway. She said that with cement barges there would be fewer juggernauts on the roads. But waterways must have terminals, and although such a development would reduce the number of vehicles passing through London, there would have to be a terminal in the West of London to serve the port, and the PLA has never been very keen on that. The terminal at Brentford—

Mr. Toby Jessel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Government Whip to snore while the House is sitting?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I do not know whether snoring at this hour of the morning is confined to Government Whips. I hope that when I do it no hon. Member will draw my attention to it.

Mr. Spearing: I was referring to the general duties of the PLA in preserving the port as a whole. Terminals in other parts of London on the river, including at Brentford, are the responsibility of that authority. But the PLA's mind has been focused on Maplin. In the East End we say that the PLA has an attack of "Maplinitis". It is always thinking in terms of developments down the river. I do not blame it to some extent. Shipping has changed and new investment must follow suit. But it would be wrong to give up the important upper part of the port. That is what the PLA wants to do. Very little capital investment, if any, has been made in the Royal docks. The PLA has maintained an outdated cost structure.
As a result of the unfortunate five-week dock strike some years ago, the much-reviled quango ACAS recommended to the port authority that a committee should be established to examine port trade development to prevent the problem we now face. If the PLA had its way there would be 4,000 fewer registered port workers. That would create a ripple effect into the rest of East London which some people calculate could reduce jobs by another 20,000. That figure has not been challenged.
In order to forestall this sort of problem the former general secretary of the TGWU, Mr. Frank Cousins, was asked to chair a joint port trade development committee. It consisted of port workers and employers and it reported in 1976. It produced a lengthy document with a number of recommendations. I have yet to hear of the Government or the PLA taking them up. That might happen in the course of discussions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has initiated. We must know why some of those recommendations were not taken up before.
It is unfortunate that my right hon. Friend the Minister accepts the PLA's strategy. That favoured a downstream drift and did not appear to take account of regional planning factors. It does not enable the Minister to take account of the reports he might receive from the accountants Messrs. Price Waterhouse, who are to look into certain aspects of the PLA accounts.
I very much hope, therefore, that when the Minister of Transport has a further look at this he will not discount the five points which were put to him by certain hon. Members when they wrote to him last week. They asked him, in respect of the Port of London, not to Jose his mind to
the continued operation of the Upper Docks as part of a Government policy for the whole regeneration of East London.
Secondly, they asked him for
a full inquiry into the charges and costs of the PLA in respect of the Upper Docks and their past policy decisions concerning their operation, maintenance, and capital investment.
Thirdly, they asked him to have a look at the Touche-Ross inquiry into the competition of Continental ports.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking has already mentioned the failure of the present Government to have a look at port public ownership. The burdens which are carried by the PLA are not comparable with some of those of its competitors on the mainland of Europe. The Touche-Ross study, which was set up by the National Ports Council in 1974, showed that in any one year, if London adopted the port costings of Rotterdam, there would be £1·3 million less expenditure, because Rotterdam gets certain supports that London does not. Indeed, if it were compared with the basis of the port of Hamburg, there would be £7 million less expenditure. I believe that in looking at the present position the Minister—and, indeed, the Opposition—should look at that aspect as well.
I mentioned the Cousins committee. We also referred to that in the letter that we sent to the Minister. It must be a response of the whole of Government, and not just of the Ministry of Transport. In particular there is the Department of the Environment's responsibility for planning in South-East England and for inner city regeneration as a whole.
The South-East Study has been mentioned in the debates that we have had in Standing Committee. I am sorry to say that in the planning study which the South-East development team brought forward there was virtually no consideration at all of seaports, despite the fact that London and Medway together account for about a third or half of Britain's sea trade. Despite the fact that the Port of London is still the biggest port in the United Kingdom, it seems that in London terms, even in this debate, it is mentioned only by Members who happen to represent dockland areas.
I suspect that the lack of perspective in many other Londoners—I am not saying that it is just London Members of Parliament—may be partly responsible for some of the difficulties that we are under in East London at the moment. I do not blame them for that. It is a matter, perhaps, of general knowledge. People say "Oh yes, the Port of London is the biggest in the United Kingdom", but because so many other things happen in London the focus tends to be off it at that stage.
I will not weary the House any longer on this because the hour is late, and we are expecting some replies from the Government Front Bench, and perhaps a winding-up speech from the Opposition spokesman. I hope that in the replies they will not go along with the leader in The Times today, because the 16 miles of deep-water quays nearest the City of London, the historic centre of the port, threaded by the biggest natural waterway in this part of the world, and certainly the one that has a great deal of potential, should not be written off just like that. It may well be true that in the accounting terms of the PLA's present operations there may not be a great deal of profit in it, but, as with so many of the firms which have moved out, there may be other ways of using the existing facilities.
It was said earlier that we in London have to look at new ways of using existing assets. As we know, in the past there was a Gadarene rush for tower blocks, a Gadarene rush for motorways and a Gadarene rush to get everything out of London that was not connected with a capital function. These fashions seem to come in at us at various times. As politicians we are responsible for what the


planners do. The hon. Member for Acton talked about politicians and planners as though we had no responsibility for them. We have. I hope, therefore, that the present Government will take account of what I have said, and also that at this early stage in the debates the official Opposition will not ally themselves with the account book attitude. If they take the account book on its own, in isolation from this matter of regional employment, they will find that it is a wrong approach. It is one that they, as with the motorways, the tower blocks and regional planning, will have to change in the end.

1.10 a.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: The constituents of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) undoubtedly face a critical employment prospect. My own constituents are comparatively fortunate. Since this present Government came into office, the unemployment rate in my constituency has only just doubled. In Greater London as a whole, the unemployment rate has trebled, and some groups have been hit harder than that. Youth unemployment in Greater London in the last four years has increased fourfold. I am sure that one of the reasons why youth unemployment has gone up even more sharply than adult unemployment is the operation of the Employment Protection Act.
At Question Time today, the Secretary of State for Employment suggested that a report produced by the Public Service Institute showed that in practice the Employment Protection Act had not had a damaging influence on employment prospects. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman can have read the report very carefully. I have read it, and I have noted that in the in-depth study that was carried out on a substantial number of firms, more than a third replied saying that their willingness to take on additional staff had been cut by the existence of the Employment Protection Act.
In the evidence submitted recently to the Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee which is looking into employment prospects, it was made plain that a substantial number of firms were unwilling to take young people, untried and unskilled, on to their books because of the existence of the Act.
The Act hits London particularly hard. London is also hit hard by the rules relating to the grants for industrial development certificates and office development permits. The chairman of the employment committee of the GLC said to me recently, referring to the grant of industrial development certificates, that the present controls were like playing chess in three dimensions, with someone changing the rules every five minutes. Certainly there is a major case for relaxing the industrial development certificate rules and the office development permits.
Then there is the operation of the Location of Offices Bureau. Surely this whole story reads like a script from that long-running BBC series, "The Men from the Ministry". First, the Location of Offices Bureau was set up to encourage firms to move out of London. Now, at double the cost, it seems, the Location of Offices Bureau is encouraging firms to move back into London. But whilst one arm of the Government, the Location of Offices Bureau, is encouraging firms to move back, another branch of the Government, the Civil Service Department, is enthusiastically insisting that unwilling Londoners are moved out of the capital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) attacked aspects of the Hardman report. They referred to the move of certain defence installations up to Glasgow at a cost of some £20 million. But that, of course, even in defence matters, is only part of the story. Thousands of civil servants from the central part of the Ministry of Defence are to be dispersed to Cardiff and Glasgow. There can be no doubt that this will cause massive personal disruption to thousands of families. There can be no doubt that it will cause substantial dislocation in the working of the Ministry of Defence itself. There can also be no doubt that will be extremely costly.
It has been estimated that the full cost of dispersing the Ministry of Defence will come to about £300 million. That was the original estimate. Since then, it is thought that the cost of this dispersal will come closer to £600 million. This is a crazy expenditure of public money, and I beg the Government, in the face of demands from the civil servants and their


unions and the mutterings in the Ministry of Defence itself, to have another look at this. The employment position in Greater London has been transformed since the Hardman committee reported. It is time that the Government looked at it again.

1.16 a.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Earlier in the debate, we had an interesting glimpse of English life in Chingford. It was suggested that there were any number of tool makers from Lesney Brothers out delivering milk and that they paid neither insurance nor tax. I am sure that the residents of Chingford will feel somewhat slandered by the description given to the House. But presumably the importance of the comment was by way of explanation of why tool makers were leaving industry and why, presumably, other people were leaving industry. The suggestion was that they were underpaid and that that fact, together with the other reasons listed by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), was why they were leaving industry in such large numbers.
One of the difficulties of retaining tool makers in industry no doubt is pay. It plays a very large part. It is very influential in retaining skilled people. But there are other contributory factors which are extremely relevant to London and earlier planning decisions, and they are also relevant to some of the matters discussed in the debate so far.
The most important aspect is the availability of housing accommodation. In my area we have a recently completed GLC estate, the Ferry Lane estate. I understand that it is proposed that the GLC should sell the houses to the highest bidders. At one time it was suggested that they should be sold by auction. It would be a glorous opportunity to retain some skilled people in North London if the GLC allocated houses not only on the basis of family need but on the basis of the tenant's skill.
There are many large factories in North London. If we could encourage skilled men to come back into the area those factories would also provide employment for less skilled people in the ratio of three to one. If we could introduce that element into the London allocation of

new housing it would contribute to restoring skill and employment to some factories which are working at less than maximum capacity. That would be a welcome development.
The housing policy has taken skilled men away. Even now it is possible for young people who have acquired skills to go on housing lists and be allocated tenancies in the new towns. In the main there is no shortage of young skilled people in the new towns that have been able to attract manufacturing industry, particularly engineering. Young ski led men have moved out of London.
Those are some of the elements in the whole business of attempting to retain skill in London. So far we have lost.
Another interesting point raised by the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) was that of having a Mr. London, a Secretary of State responsible inside the Cabinet for London affairs. Some of us on the Labour Benches have argued for 10 years that there should be a co-ordinating factor in the Cabinet. That job is at present undertaken by the Secretary of State for the Environment, but he is often defeated by other interests within the Cabinet. Because he does not see London among the highest criteria against which he should measure his decisions, very often he allows to go by default part of the part of the argument when it comes to the allocation of resources for the London area.
Time and again we have seen clearly demonstrated the necessity to have inside the Cabinet someone responsible for coordinating London affairs. Over the past 10 years I have heard no better suggestion than the appointment of a Secretary of State for London. I am confident that before long we shall see a move in that direction. I have no idea what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has in mind for the future, but I think that it is an attractive proposition. I am confident that when a new Cabinet is formulated it will include someone to represent London, particularly as a number of things have happened. We have been overtaken by events. Therefore, such an appointment is more essential now than ever.
Apart from the allocation of resources, other factors have denied co-ordination so far. Most of them have been mentioned in the debate. I was interested


to listen in particular to the hon. Member for Ravensbourne, who referred to one or two of them. There are in London 32 boroughs, all separate entities. The problems of housing, roads, health and so on clearly demonstrate the need for such a voice as I have described inside the Cabinet. I look forward to that.
The most disturbing thing, not mentioned so far, is that as I understand it there is no major employer who has stated that he has any intention of developing new manufacturing capacity in London. From what the major manufacturers tell me, it seems that they know of no one who foresees the development of a major plant in London. Certainly there is no major engineering undertaking with that intention. That is most disturbing. It means that the development of additional engineering capacity in London, together with any new manufacturing plant, can come only from the NEB or public sector resources of one sort or another. That is an important aspect of industrial development inside the capital city.
What can we do to overcome some of the difficulties? I hope that the Labour Government are on the verge of taking decisions to prevent this industrial drain from London. The whole of regional policy and all the incentives before a board of directors, when deciding matters affecting the renewal of their plant or the setting up of new capacity, tempt such industrialists to go for Government subsidies, which means that they move out of London. The whole apparatus set up by Government to assist manufacturers encourages movement from London.
Over the past decade we have seen firms, faced with decisions concerning renewal of plant or fresh development, uprooting themselves from London and moving elsewhere. This is one of the losing battles that I have fought in the past 15 years. I now see some signs of the Government beginning to realise the futility and contradictory nature of that policy.
I predict that one major change which will take place will be that a manufacturer now operating in London will be told that he will not qualify for subsidies if it means uprooting existing business in

London and moving elsewhere. It would be sensible to say that there must be these fundamental changes in regional policy if we are to correct this drift that has taken place over recent years. Apart from the legislation affecting inner urban areas, local authorities are now thinking in terms of offering subsidies to manufacturers entering the capital. We have an almost idiotic situation whereby the Government are making resources available to companies, encouraging them to move from London, while the GLC—and the Government themselves in certain circumstances—are offering inducements for a company to come into London. As one manufacturer could move out and vacate premises, it was possible for the local authority or the Government to encourage someone else to come in and replace him. It is bordering on idiocy to continue in such a way. I look forward to its being ended, so that we have some sanity and stop this drift of industry away from London.
One hon. Member opposite referred to the treasurership of the Labour Party. I do not know how he meant it, but I can assure him that this whole question of industry moving out of London is taken very seriously indeed by members of the Labour Party, and I look forward to changes being made in the near future so that we can correct this contradictory position and thereby assist the maintenance of industry and jobs and look forward to an expansion of manufacturing within London.

1.31 a.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The serious quality of the speeches in the debate, and the non-partisan approach that hon. Members have adopted, suggest to me that it could be very fruitful to set up a Select Committee to consider the problems of London, or for Members representing London to form themselves into a Greater London Grand Committee on one or two occasions a year, when we could look more deeply into London's strategic long-term problems.
This is a particularly opportune moment to look at the employment problems of London, because London is in danger of losing its self-confidence. Instead of planning ambitiously for the twenty-first century as a prosperous and thriving


capital, we are increasingly trying to protect the status quo by subsidies or controls, afraid of the future and of rapid change. I believe that that attitude is wrong, and that we need to have more confidence in ourselves.
I believe that two particular economic difficulties beset London. One is that it is not a coherent economic system within its own borders. A number of hon. Members have drawn attention to the lack of mobility and the fact that it hampers people seeking employment. Obviously, the cost of transport and transport bottlenecks and housing problems make it difficult for people to move from one part of London to another, either in search of work each day or moving more permanently to places where the jobs are, which they feel inclined to do. We have some black spots and some grey areas, and some areas of overheating which have no common concern.
Let us look first at the internal transport facilities. These have been studied so often that one might think that there is nothing more to learn about improving them by such devices as off-peak hours or staggered working hours. But I believe that this is the right moment to look again at the way we organise our transport facilities in London and how we organise our work timetables, because we are in the middle of a most important change in the structure of working hours.
I do not believe that we shall ever go back to full employment of the old kind: I think we have to get used to the idea of going forward to a new way of living and working, not just in London but all over Western Europe, as new technology and new investment change the whole character of the processes of the creation of wealth. I do not believe that Britain is going to go on with the 40-hour week or longer when in France, Germany, Belgium and elsewhere, people are increasingly campaigning for the 35-hour or even the 30-hour week, or for the four-day week.
The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) raised the question of the opportunities for training for more skilled jobs. I believe that the shorter working week will at the same time provide the regular opportunity for training and retraining on the job which is the only way

in which we can all of us keep ourselves fresh in the second half of our careers and capable of keeping pace with technological change.
Hon. Members on this side of the House have often drawn attention to the housing problems that have arisen since the passing of the 1974 Act. I can understand the reason why the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) is rather broody about that Act and does not like criticism of it. Many of the changes that were introduced in that Act had to come, but many obvious difficulties have also resulted from it. Many hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that it is now extremely difficult to come into central London and find relatively cheap accommodation, particularly for students, young professional people and those who expect to work for a short time here but cannot afford or do not wish to lay out the money to start acquiring property of their own. We are not catering for the short-term needs of those who want to move about in the centre of London or who come here for a relatively short period of their working life.
Nor are we making it possible for those who have accommodation to let to do so with the certainty that in due course, if they need vacant possession, they can have it again. Hon. Members have drawn attention to the problems in the public sector of unlet accommodation, but in the private sector there are tens of thousands of empty properties which are either suitable for tenants to walk into as they stand or very soon and very cheaply could be made suitable. But first there must be a change in the law. If we are to get that we must have a change in the Minister, because he has become so committed to the 1974 Act remaining exactly as it stands that one despairs of ever persuading him that there is an urgent social problem in central London. It is his responsibility to deal with it—and the problem could easily be solved.
I think that as part of the national programme of housing reform we need some sort of a housing tax credit or housing allowance system to replace the present jungle of housing subsidies. This is something that has to come. I believe, too, that we need to reconsider the eligibility for housing improvement grants in the inner city areas. I think that we could


look again at the whole idea of a London weighting for allowances under national insurance, supplementary benefit, and so on, in connection with housing. But these are questions that one could deal with at very much greater length and I want to make another point.
London has to be part of a much greater economy. It cannot just live to itself. Hon. Members have reminded us that the basis of the wealth of London rested on the port, and we are now trying to carry on as before, while the docks rapidly decline. I am not entirely persuaded by those who want more subsidies for the docks, or more pressure on the Port of London Authority, because however well we maintain the old dock facilities, if the cargoes are not coming into London for all sorts of reasons, we shall not get the benefit of the docklands which were set up for a different kind of world trade. Instead of resting on the greatest port in the world as it was London is now having to make do with Heathrow on the one hand and the telex machines of the City of London on the other as our means of communication with the world.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: And Gatwick.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: As my hon. Friend says, Gatwick is there, and I am sure he is longing to expand it to take some of the pressure off Heathrow.
The development which is urgently needed is the Channel link. I trust that the Government will think again about that. I am sure that it is because of the well-known feelings of the Secretary of State for the Environment about any entanglement with the Continent that the Government are still maintaining their obstinate lack of interest in the Channel tunnel—or possibly a Channel bridge. The idea has a very long history, but once more I think that now is the moment when it ought to be considered again.
When this scheme was canvassed a few years ago, and came within an ace of being adopted, it had two major weaknesses. One was that it was too ambitious and therefore the cost was vast and speculative. But the other thing which aroused the opposition of the public was the idea of building an entirely new rail link from the coast into London, which inevitably fell foul of the environmental lobbies. I well remember how afraid people

in Kensington were of the effects of opening a tremendous new station or depot at the White City.
The idea was abandoned, rightly or wrongly, but now there are a number of signs that it is being revived. There have been reports in the press of French and British railway chiefs having discussions to consider the possibility of a more realistic approach, of simply constructing a rail link across the Channel which would be much less disturbing environmentally. I believe that this is something which needs urgently to be followed up.
I suggest that the existing rail network should be used as far as possible, but that the traffic, particularly container traffic, should come into dockland in preference to other rail depots in the centre of London. The environmental advantages of a rail link are that it restores the attraction of rail rather than road for Continental traffic, so that in the South of England we would have fewer juggernauts taking traffic to and from the Continent by road, and we would by good planning be able to make fuller use of our rail system in off-peak times when it was not fully occupied by commuter traffic.
There are other reasons why this is a particularly apt moment, and why it is especially important, to follow this up. It is not only because the whole country is aware of the problems of the Port of London Authority, but because we need a major employment scheme which will once again give the South-East confidence. We used to think that the South-East was an area of permanent overheating, but now we are much more discriminating. We know that there are pockets of unemployment even in the area which used to be thought to be collecting the whole riches of the country and leaving the outer regions of Britain more exposed.
The concept of a Channel link now might be taken as a sort of Tennessee Valley Authority scheme—a big new project for the construction industry, which would give employment and also make use of a large quantity of steel and other materials which we have the surplus capacity to produce. I shall not bore the House by reading the whole of a letter in The Times, which many hon. Members already have seen, from that very wise man, Sir Alec Cairncross. But


I should like to remind hon. Members of one paragraph of that letter which appeared on 8th June. He said:
Circumstances have changed and the need is now for worthwhile capital projects. The scheme under consideration by British Rail for a single-track tunnel (as reported in your issue of April 3) seems to us"—
that is to say, members of the advisory group appointed by the Department—
to offer many of the advantages of the earlier project at much less cost. If it could be put in hand within the next year or two it would contribute towards increasing investment and employment at a time when both seem likely to be depressed. It would also provide a more satisfactory expansionist measure than do the necessarily short-lived effects of stimulating consumer spending.
A few weeks ago we read about the German initiative at Bremen to remove the exchange risk from European currencies. This is not just a matter of importance for current trade. If this initiative succeeds, it will have an extremely significant effect on investment and the possibility of financing long-term investments without the crippling effects of unpredictable exchange risks which at present inhibit major ventures of this kind. London, as I have said before, must have confidence in its own future. If the Government will not back a lifeline project of the scope and importance of the new Channel rail link, I believe that the City of London should be ready to finance it itself from private funds.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Whereas many would accept the argument which is put forward in general terms, what many people in Kent particularly, and certainly to some extent in Sussex, would object to is that there should be the concentration of road traffic in Sussex and Kent. To what extent does my hon. Friend believe that the Government will concentrate the road traffic, if there is to be a "chunnel"—that is, rail traffic underneath the Channel—so that the rail traffic is concentrated in the area in London which lie suggests is such a good idea?

Sir B. Rhys Williams: This is most important, not only from the environmental point of view, but from the cost point of view and from the social point of view, because it is in London that we are looking for new ways of

reviving the docklands. I believe we could have a major container depot there which would serve the whole of Britain. I do not think that we should set out to construct one on the coast, but I think that we should use the existing rail links from the coast to London and other major centres—I am concerned particularly with London, obviously. This is something which would make the scheme profitable and relatively inexpensive and, therefore, immediately practicable.

1.47 a.m.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I congratulate the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) on sitting through this debate. I think that they have both done very well in having listened to the debate, and I hope that they will do equally well in their winding-up speeches.
This has been a very valuable debate, which I shall not prolong for more than a few minutes. At 13 minutes to 2 o'clock in the morning it is ridiculous to hope to consider London's problems with anything like the sharpness that one might have been able to devote to them six or seven hours ago.
I support the suggestion that there should be a London Question Time, which perhaps could be combined with a Grand Committee for London. Such a Grand Committee could perhaps meet on Monday mornings, starting at 11 a.m. as we do on Fridays. I think that the temptation to hold a London Grand Committee on Fridays should be avoided, because private Members' business needs to be considered then, and Monday morning at 11 o'clock would be more suitable because many of our colleagues would be struggling in from the snowdrifts of Scotland or the other less fortunate parts of the United Kingdom. London Members could have a field day on Monday mornings and could also be accorded the kind of attention in the national press, and especially in the London press, which would not be available if London debates were held on Fridays, when coverage in only one day's London papers would be available—the following day.
I declare what is not really an interest. Before I was elected to the House I ran a small craft business in Covent Garden, in the centre of London. It was a loss-making business, and then it started to


make profits. I became aware that for small businesses in the centre of London there are great pressures to move out. Comprehensive redevelopment threatens small businesses in a way that is not appreciated by many people who work in large firms.
Perhaps one of the exciting things about Covent Garden is the way in which the comprehensive redevelopment plans have failed to come to fruition, with the result that many of the old fruit warehouses and vegetable stores are being turned into craft workshops, with the guidance and help of the Greater London Council and the local authorities but at the sort of rents that small businesses, and especially traditional small businesses, can afford. Many of the traditional small businesses can move into allied fields and go on to better things as long as they keep their core of craftsmen together. Employers of craftsmen should do what we successfully did in our sign business from 1973 onwards: they should ensure that no people are taken to do mere labouring or semi-skilled jobs.
We made it our practice, with the cooperation of the trade unions, to take on only those who would accept day release and attain full skill and ability and recognised qualifications. That made it easier to attract the type of young people who will be needed in future to carry on the traditional crafts and skills and who will continue to earn substantial sums for themselves, for the country and for London.
I turn briefly to some constituency matters. The debate may be the last opportunity before the Summer Recess to make a constituency speech, and I do so without apology. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) referred to the problems facing the defence codification agency, in Mottingham. It seems clear that substantial sums will be wasted in its transfer to Glasgow. The Government proposed many years ago to amalgamate the various parts of the DCA because of computerisation. That has turned out to be totally unnecessary. One of the great advantages of computerisation is that we can use data terminals to link those doing manual work and those doing the filing and look-up work. By using off-peak transmission through the ordinary telephone system, for ex-

ample, it is easy to feed the computer and to leave people in their place of work.
The proposal to move the DCA and other ancillary defence establishments to Scotland is a bad one. If the Government cannot find any other opportunities for creating employment in Scotland they should resign and allow another Administration to take office. If they insist on going ahead with a plan that was cooked up five years ago and that will not take effect for another three or four years, they are not managing the public purse as they should. They are certainly not recognising the home circumstances of those who work at the DCA. In practice there are many who are not mobile, in terms of wishing to move to Glasgow. Few of them told me that they wanted to make the move, or that they would be willing to do so.
Many who work at Mottingham live locally. They have 10 minutes or 15 minute journeys to the establishment. Many of them have substantial and heavy home responsibilities. Some of them look after aged parents. Many of them have dependent children. If these people are offered alternative work in the centre of London and they accept it, they will be working not an eight-hour day but a 10-hour day, as there will be an extra two hours spent each day travelling to and from work. The changed life of the individual does not seem to get sufficient recognition from the Government.
I am not asking the Minister to reply to the matters that I am raising; I ask him to pass on my remarks to the various Secretaries of State who are involved.
We have seen the Government's response to the difficulties of the dockers—I sympathise with both the dockers and the Government in facing the present difficulties—and I ask them to give similar consideration to those who work in industries that are less emotive but are equally valuable to the country, have a future, and should remain where they are presently sited, where the employees are doing their work well. The dislocation that would he caused to defence establishments as a result of the proposed move cannot be quantified in money. However, it can be anticipated and avoided if the Secretary of State for Defence will


change his mind and let the DCA remain in Mottingham.
I turn to a question concerning the Department of Health and Social Security, and to another part of my constituency where again my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst has an interest. I believe that he was born in the Eltham and Mottingham hospital. It is one of the small cottage hospitals that provide a magnificent service to the local people. It was founded nearly 100 years ago. Irrespective of whether it is closed, there will be a centenary celebration to mark the efforts made by so many people well before the hospital was nationalised after the last war.
The Eltham and Mottingham hospital is one where many of the facilities were paid for by local people before and after nationalisation and where the large-scale plans that created the mammoth Greenwich district hospital are considered to have been somewhat in error. The district hospital is of no real use to most of my constituents, who continue to use the Eltham and Mottingham hospital, as it provides the sort of service that is needed. When I asked the Secretary of State whether he had had one representation from a constituent agreeing with him or arguing for the closure of the hospital, he said that he had had no such representations. I believe that the area health authority and the region have been under immense pressure to close that hospital and other hospitals in the locality.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going far too wide of the subject under discussion.

Mr. Bottomley: The jobs of the people who have worked there for a long time—people who have home responsibilities and who live close to the hospital—are being thrown away.
One of the reasons why people enjoy living in Eltham, which is a stable district, with a good balance of housing, is that it has its local hospital and local employment. But at the same time as the hospital is under threat, the largest employer, the Department of Defence, is moving jobs away.
The third point that I want to raise—this affects employment not only in my constituency, but in dockland—is transport. We have had the environment and

employment, and transport is also included in the debate.
Some time ago the Government approved plans to improve the A2 up to the edge of my constituency. They also built the Blackwall Tunnel approach road. Both roads are of motorway standard. But there is a missing three-mile link in between—the Rochester Way. It has clearly needed a relief road, since the Government decided to have the roads on either side. The people in the middle cannot create employment by getting double glazing because they are not covered by the grant scheme, but those living on the improved parts of the road can. There is more noise and pollution in the middle, but no compensation or help for double glazing installation.
When dockland starts to be redeveloped on a more substantial scale, how do the Government intend people to move in and out of the area? How do they intend to establish the road link between dockland and the Channel ports? I know what the answer will be. We shall need to have the Rochester Way relief road. Yet this missing three-mile stretch—in European terms, 4·8 kilometres—has still not been brought up to dual carriageway standard. If the Government seriously intend to get the acres of dockland redeveloped and to get industry back into that area, they should make the Rochester Way relief road a trunk road. They should provide substantial financial backing and get ahead with a public inquiry into building the road.
I am in doubt about detailed large-scale plans. Comprehensive redevelopment destroyed the small firms because they could not get the trade unions or the CBI to plead loudly enough for them.
We have seen the difficulties of sudden cuts on massive teacher training programmes. I am grateful to the Government for saving the Avery Hill college, in my constituency. I took part in the massive fight to save that college and some of the jobs there. I should like the same thing to happen with the DCA, the Eltham and Mottingham hospital and the Rochester Way relief road.

1.58 a.m.

Mr. John Moore: I shall trespass on the time of the House for only a short while at this late hour.
I think that we owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) for giving us the opportunity to debate London matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and other hon. Members on both sides have legitimately drawn attention to the serious and in many ways non-partisan debate that we have had about London. I hope that those representing the media, who are not conspicuously attending the debate at this hour of the night, will be conscious of the serious debate that we are having so that they can take beyond the House the kind of arguments that have been made rather than the normal comments that are made about our debates.
I should like to touch on one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington about the Channel tunnel. I have a definite constituency interest in that matter. To that extent, I choose my words carefully. I think that those with extremely close knowledge of the issue who followed it with great care and attention should be able to assure all concerned that, although the tunnel is under rediscussion, there are no proposals for the kind of link that was an environmental disaster potentially for my constituents among others. That point must be made because we cannot allow that sort of worry to develop again.
I wish to discuss four matters relating to how employment could be improved in London. Obviously I have a particular interest in the Croydon areas. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham), my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and others mentioned the Hardman report on the dispersal of civil servants. This is crucial for Croydon.
My hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill), Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) and Croydon, South (Mr. Clark) all agree with what I am about to say. The proposal to move the Property Services Agency from Croydon to Teesside involves 3,000 jobs—an enormous amount of employment even without all the ancillary relationships attached to those jobs. We cannot afford this loss of jobs in London.
I appreciate the Minister's courtesy in staying in the Chamber throughout the

debate. Obviously he does not know about this matter, but I have the PSA headquarters in my constituency and I take great exception to the fact that I learned only today that a press release was issued in Middlesbrough yesterday by the Department of the Environment concerning the establishment of a replacement centre in Middlesbrough. I have spoken to the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, which represents the workers in the PSA in Croydon, and I know that the press release has, quite unnecessarily, caused great additional concern, uncertainty and worry. That is the sort of issue in which the local Member and local people should be involved much more.
We have said sufficient about the Hardman proposals. As other hon. Members have said, the Hardman dispersal policies, for which both main parties must take responsibility, are totally out of date for London. They have no bearing on the difficulties of London, which has 11 per cent. of the nation's unemployed. Whichever party is in office, it must rapidly review the dispersal procedure, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that my remarks are passed on to his colleagues.
My second point concerns job opportunities within the whole London area. I know that hon. Members will not mind if I go back to our recent debate on the private GLC Bill. My hon. Friends, in an attempt to increase employment opportunities in greater London, sought, in clause 11, to give the GLC permission to guarantee loans. Unfortunately, we did not have an opportunity to debate the cause, but the proposal was rejected by the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) spoke about the need to create different sorts of money instruments which would be of assistance in creating different job opportunities, particularly in the inner city area. We ought to be more imaginative before rejecting loan guarantees. We seem to be happy to spend taxpayers' money in subsidies and direct grants, but we refuse permission for loan guarantees.
I remind the House of the additional employment opportunities that were provided in the difficult days between 1975


and 1977, when sterling was in considerable difficulties, by the Treasury guarantee to nationalised industries to cover their exchange risk. Those industries were able to raise a great amount of money in the Eurodollar market in non-sterling denominated form. Surely that is the sort of thing in respect of which very simple Government action could reverse the wrong decision that they took in the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill debate.
The third point in respect of which specific Government action can help to improve employment opportunities in the whole of the London area is one that I sought to make in the debates on the Finance Bill. This concerns the whole problem of housing. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have talked about the implications of housing on mobility and, therefore, on employment opportunities. I want to concentrate briefly on the specific relationship of one point of current legislation to jobs in the construction industry within the whole of the Greater London area. I refer to two very major building concerns, which, unhappily, do not have their headquarters in my constituency but in Croydon—Wates and Mansell. I should like to see them giving more job oportunities within the Greater London area.
What I am concerned about specifically is the current position in regard to the stamp duty on house purchases. This is a crucial deterrent to purchase; therefore, it is a deterrent to construction of new houses and therefore, obviously, a deterrent to employment. I shall try to illustrate that.
Within the last four years house prices have risen by over 44 per cent. To give a specific example—it is much easier to deal with the real world—in my constituency, a typical three-bedroomed house on an estate called Forest Dale, a Wates modern estate, cost £16,500 in 1974. That involved a cost to the people buying it of £82.50 in stamp duty. Today the very same house costs £27,000. That has a stamp duty attached to it of £405. That is forgetting all the legal and other costs associated with house purchase and moves. It has created a very serious marginal deterrent to movement and to the creation of the purchase of new houses.
I come to the implications of this in terms of specific jobs. I have to make an obviously arithmetical calculation. We know, for example, that it takes two man-years to construct the average house. These figures are available from the House Builders Federation. Let us assume that we did not have this marginal deterrent, the current stamp duty imposition on house purchases. I think that we should probably see about 15,000 new houses created—houses that are not built at present. That is 30,000 new direct construction jobs—throughout the United Kingdom, but obviously with new implications for the construction industry in Greater London. Just imagine all the social and other monetary implications attached to 30,000 new jobs.
Finally, I come to the fourth point that I have sought to make. I see within Class IV, Vote 13, on page 69, reference H1, that we are concerned in the particular Votes in question, among other things, with the expenditure of money on the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth. To the extent that we are concerned, one or two of my hon. Friends—specifically my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—have drawn attention to the astonishing and appalling effect on employment opportunities of the way in which our direct taxation system works.
I shall not go into further detail, because hon. Members on both sides of the House have talked about the nature of the difficulties we see in the absence of differentials between skilled, semiskilled and unskilled people, and especially the absence of differentials after tax.
Many hon. Members have talked about factory visits. The other day I was in a factory on one of the big council estates in New Addington—the factory of Twentieth Century Electronics. I was talking to some apprentices, and I was asking the factory manager and foremen why they could not get more apprentices. The hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson), who quite legitimately commented about engineering, will be interested to know that in Croydon we have, in the Engineering Employers Federation training scheme, the first girl engineering apprenticeships within the whole of the United Kingdom. This is a very important and positive move.
In the factory I asked why we were not getting more apprentices—boys and girls—working on the engineering floor and trying to learn the skills of the toolmaker's trade. It was pointed out to me that the young boys and girls talk to their parents, and legitimately their parents say "What is the point?" At the age of 45 or 50 they ask what distinction, after all the years of work and effort, the skills they possess give them in the market place.
Beyond that we must concern ourselves with the ways in which the Government could help by accepting the essential point, which is that without massive reductions of direct tax there is no way in which we can create the wealth that creates the employment that we have been discussing throughout the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse]) to speak I remind him that he stands at tenth position in Mr. Speaker's ballot. If he speaks now he forfeits his opportunity to speak on the subject that he has balloted for. I take it that he understands that position.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your courtesy in warning me of that. I assure you that I am aware that if I speak now I shall not be allowed to speak later.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Member that the subject for which he balloted and was due to speak upon comes under Class VI Vote 1. The subject that we are now discussing does not come within that class. I am simply pointing out to the hon. Member the difference between the two subjects.

Mr. Jessel: I am grateful for that reminder, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The speech that I shall now deliver will be different from the speech that I would have delivered under the other heading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for that assurance. I fully appreciate that he understands the difference.

2.12 a.m.

Mr. Jessel: I begin by welcoming the opening in Twickenham last week, of a jobcentre. I hope to visit it in the course of the next few days. It is regrettable that it is necessary to open such establishments in outer London. They are a

reminder that the unemployment problem that besets so many other parts of the country has now come into the Greater London area.
The overwhelming majority of my constituents work within Greater London, in one of three areas. These are central London, which includes the City and the West End, locally within the borough of Richmond which includes my constituency or neighbouring centres, such as Kingston or Hounslow, and Heathrow airport, or the industrial area that surrounds it.
It is a paradox that Heathrow airport, which is the source of so much employment for my constituents and is a facility for the travel of others, causes distress to so many more through the frightful noise to which it gives rise. The aircraft noise problem is experienced in neighbouring constituencies and boroughs such as Wandsworth, which includes the Putney constituency. I regret that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) has not been present at any time in the debate to deal with employment in London when unemployment is so serious in his constituency and the Wandsworth borough.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Does the hon. Member not think that he is being unfair in attacking my hon. Friend in that way? The other Members absent could constitute a long list. I remind the hon. Member that when we had a Standing Committee debate on the South East Regional Study last week no Tory Back Bencher turned up.

Mr. Jessel: The hon. Member for Putney signed the list of those demanding this debate, indicating a personal interest in the subject, but he has not appeared for any part of it. This is an extremely serious matter in Putney and Wandsworth since one in five jobs in manufacturing industry in that borough have disappeared since 1971. Last year there were 8,500 unemployed in the borough. It is wrong of Labour Members to attempt to make light of this matter. The situation arises largely from the restrictive practices and high rates of the former Wandsworth council, which went out of office last May.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I suggest that the hon. Member may be a little dissatisfied in the morning when he finds that my hon. Friend was here until about 9.30 or 9.45,


but then, because of a business commitment this morning in his constituency, was obliged to leave. It is unfair of the hon. Member to say that my hon. Friend was not here. The hon. Gentleman himself was not here at that point.

Mr. Jessel: I am told that the hon. Gentleman was not here, but I do not think that anyone will want to continue to dwell on this matter.
I now turn to the relationship between employment and transport, which is a vital one. When the House discusses employment in the regions of the country, the infrastructure of road, rail and air connections assumes a high importance, and this is also true of London. Indeed, the transport infrastructure interacts profoundly with the whole employment scene. We need transport—road, rail or air—to get to work, transport for the distribution of goods produced, and transport to get the raw materials into the factory.
The construction of roads generates employment. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) referred a few moments ago to the role of the Greater London Council in finding and lending the funds to promote employment.
I was therefore horrified to hear of an action by the Government which has mulcted the Greater London Council of funds, and thus curtailed its capacity to promote employment. I should like to describe what has occurred. One of the main trunk roads in the country is the M3 motorway, which comes into London from the south-west. The M3 ends near the Greater London council boundary at Sunbury, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins). Three or four years ago the Greater London council was constructing a link road from the motorway called the A305 Twickenham Road to Sunbury Way improvement scheme. It is a three-mile link road, of motorway standards, so that people coming off the motorway—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not the subject matter of the present debate.

Mr. Jessel: Thank you for reminding me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am relat-

ing my argument very closely to the employment aspect, as the construction of this road generates employment and assists in the distribution of goods, which facilitates employment in the London region.
The year 1975 was, of course, the year of the 26 per cent. inflation, after the Lord President of the Council, then the Secretary of State for Employment, gave way to the miners in the summer of 1974, with the result that wages let rip and costs escalated throughout the economy, including the cost of that road. Its costs went up rapidly, and it amounted to an extra £1·6 million, which the Greater London Council had no option but to pay. I am informed that if the council had not paid this sum the contractor would not have completed the work and would have been forced into liquidation, which would have meant considerable unemployment, apart from adding to the cost by bringing in a second contractor at a later stage, when costs would have risen higher still. It is normal for the Government to pay 75 per cent. of the cost of trunk roads, but the Government refused to pay any part—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman assured me that he knew exactly what was the difference between the subject matter under discussion and the one for which he has been selected by Mr. Speaker—no. 10 in the ballot. I deprecate any attempt by an hon. Member to jump the queue by introducing a later subject matter into an earlier debate.

Mr. Jesse: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a result of this shoddy and unethical conduct by the Government, not only have the ratepayers of London just been robbed of £1¼ million; there is an added burden upon the industry of Greater London through higher rates, which must tend to drive industry out and must be damaging to employment opportunities. It is a most disgraceful episode, and I hope that the Government will produce that£1¼ million or come up with a far more convincing explanation than has so far been provided.

2.20 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: A great many hon. Members have contributed to this debate, though not as many


as were promised from the Labour Benches. Government supporters seem to have disappeared like snowflakes in a hot sun.
First, I welcome the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), who rightly drew attention to the declining population in central London and drew from that a fair conclusion, which over the years he and I have often drawn, of a declining rate base making it more difficult for companies to continue to employ the same number of people. Had the hon. Member remained on that commonsense line, the debate could have been conducted in a better atmosphere than that which followed. Unfortunately, after his opening remarks he degenerated into his more normal political nonsense, and I shall try to demonstrate that this did no service to the debate.
The hon. Member failed totally to understand the nature of the attack upon the housing problem that is now being waged by the GLC. For the first time, it is devoting top priority to housing in inner London. The hon. Member may not like it, but it is a fact. He went on to attack Sir Frank Marshall, saying that he was in the employ of the GLC. If he had studied the facts a little more carefully, he would have known that Sir Frank had not accepted a penny for his investigation. That is on the record, and the hon. Member should know it. I find it very difficult to make my speech when the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean), having woken up, interrupts me from a sedentary position. I shall give way to him if he wishes. As he appears not to wish to do so, I repeat that I deprecate that attack upon Sir Frank Marshall, who has been carrying out his review for no fee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] It is obvious that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shore-ditch will not withdraw his remarks. However, the facts are on record—

Mr. Ronald Brown: I did not allege that Sir Frank had taken money. I said that he was employed by the GLC, as he was. He was asked to come and do the job, and that is employment.

Mr. Finsberg: Anyone who is in employment is expected by normal, intelligent people to be accepting a fee. The hon. Member is twisting the truth again.

He has launched an attack upon a man of great reputation and he has not got the political courage to withdraw it. The facts are clear, and I hope that those who understand these matters will realise that the hon. Member is doing no good at all to his tattered reputation. In any event, after a decade it is sensible to have a review of the way in which the London government system is operating.
I was sorry that the hon. Member went on to use much of the remainder of his speech to attack the GLC. He and many of his hon. Friends attacked especially the sale of council houses. What they cannot accept is that this was at the direct invitation of the voters of London, who voted consciously for that policy. Government supporters may not like it, but they will have to get used to it. This was the cornerstone of the GLC election campaign. It was also the cornerstone of the borough election campaign, and the GLC and the boroughs swung to the party which offered council tenants the opportunity of escaping being serfs of Socialist-dominated authorities. The sooner that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are translated to the other side of this Chamber to give tenants in areas such as those represented by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch or the Under-Secretary of State for Employment the chance to buy their own homes by statute, the better.
Let me remind the House of some of the successes so far achieved by the Greater London council—a body that is operating on the basis of a manifesto, which is a device popular with Government supporters when they can quote it, but an unpopular one when they hear other people quoting theirs.
Amongst the achievements of the GLC is the sale already of 1,000 council houses, and that number will increase substantially over the coming months. The GLC has pioneered the concept of homesteading. It is putting into active use the hundreds of derelict properties that were owned by a Labour GLC that did nothing about them other than permitting them to rot, leaving people on waiting lists instead of giving them the opportunity to occupy them.
Under the previous administration at County Hall, there were more than 1,000 people squatting in GLC property. By


April of this year, that number had been reduced by more than half, and the majority of these squatters have now been rehoused as tenants or licensees and are now paying rents or fees. I think that we all welcome that long overdue move, which could have been taken by Sir Reg Goodwin. The trouble was that he did not understand that to most people in London squatting was an offence against decent people who queued honestly, waiting to reach the top of the housing list. The GLC has put right a wrong, and it should have been done a long time ago.

Mr. Arthur Latham: What is the hon. Gentleman's answer to the fact that for every 20 council houses sold, one applicant on the waiting list is denied the opportunity of being housed? Secondly, would he care to say how many council properties the Tory GLC is now keeping empty pending their sale?

Mr. Finsberg: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's second question without notice, because I am not a representative of the GLC. The hon. Member has his own ways of getting questions put down there in order to obtain those figures. As for his first question, what he and his hon. Friends have failed to grasp is that the mobility amongst council tenants was very low. The overwhelming bulk of council tenants, not merely in the GLC area but elsewhere, stay there for life, as do their children. There is no such issue as the one that the hon. Gentleman raises.
In the year just ended, 1977–78, the GLC lent nearly £20 million to housing associations. In the 1978–79 housing programme, £27 million has been allocated to the same purpose. I am certain that this is the way to proceed with helping the people of London who want housing.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) could not be here tonight, but he asked me to say that he believes strongly in the argument being put forward that one of the problems affecting London's employment is the loss of skilled labour and the problems caused by the lack of mobility among people in Greater London. That, I think, is an extremely wise observation.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker), following the

speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, brought us back to the subject of the debate. He pointed out the real dangers facing London, and he gave us the dramatic figures on unemployment. He went on to make a strong case for saying that where there is a loss of skill, skilled manpower goes, there has to be an attempt to replace it with semi-skilled manpower, and that has one of two results. Either there is a lower standard in general, because the skilled people are no longer there and plants are being operated on the basis of perhaps 80 per cent. skill, or firms close down because of the loss of skilled manpower, with the result that both semiskilled and unskilled find themselves out of work. All over London, there is either a reduction in quality or a general rise in unemployment.
Until I come to answer some of the other political arguments of Government supporters, I hope that I can return to the opening sentences of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, and try to be non-partisan for a while.
Unfortunately, I have to come straight to the speech of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who flitted in and out, as he does so often. He makes attacks, then he disappears and is not seen again. I hope he will read in Hansard what is said about him. It is clear that he will not be back tonight.
The right hon. Member made a monstrous attack upon my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and admitted that he had not had the elementary courtesy which hon. Members normally have of warning my hon. Friend of his intention to make this personal attack on him. I think that most hon. Members will agree that conduct of that kind shows a standard below that which we would normally expect. He attacked my hon. Friend for contributing an excellent series of articles in the Evening News on the problems of London. I shall not join the right hon. Member in attacking the Evening News. I shall join, instead, in praising the Evening News for having had the sense to commission such an important series of articles. If it had invited the right hon. Gentleman or me, would anyone in opposing parties have accepted as impartial anything that was said? Would not both sides have said that the


right hon. Gentleman and I were too close to the issue? Therefore, was not it intelligent to ask my hon. Friend, who was a former Minister at the Department of the Environment and who, although he may live in London, does not represent a London seat and can look at these problems dispassionately? I believe that when people have read the five articles they will accept that they make a major contribution to thought in London on how we shall proceed. I think particularly of what my hon. Friend will say on the Marshall plan.
When he spoke about matters that he understood, the right hon. Gentleman was listened to by the House with respect. It is sad that he did not stick to such matters throughout. He attacked the PLA I shall not follow him along that path, except to say that I am not defending the PLA, but only one side was given. Dockers and their leaders bear much of the responsibility for the overmanning and restrictive practices that have led to job losses and a closing down of much of London's docks.

Miss Richardson: Shocking.

Mr. Finsberg: It is shocking, and that is the responsibility that many people must bear for the position in which the PLA finds itself.
The right hon. Gentleman then spoke of the need for a development corporation and how he had pressed this upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). The right hon. Gentleman was, after all, Government Chief Whip. Is he saying that he had no power to tell his Government "I want a development corporation for my people in dockland"? What he said tonight is an abject confession of his failure to convince any of his colleagues that what he was talking about was sensible.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that at that time a development corporation was the answer. It is interesting that this is a conclusion reached by Sir Frank Marshall, but I am not certain whether there is time still to have it.
I want to revert to the question of West Cumbria and the move of the Government laboratory. In an intervention in the right hon. Gentleman's speech I referred to a letter of 25th July from the Under-Secretary—the hon. Member for

Keighley (Mr. Cryer). I should now like to refer to the earlier letter of 11th July to the hon. Gentleman from Miss Shelagh Roberts, the leader of the planning and communications policy committee of the GLC. She made the point about the need to try to keep the laboratory in London and not send it to West Cumbria, ending as follows:
I would greatly appreciate the opportunity, therefore, to discuss the matter further with you or with one of your colleagues and very much hope that a meeting can be arranged in the near future.
Two weeks later that request was turned down, and the Minister's concluding sentences were:
The Government's view, however, is that the dispersal programme must be considered as a whole. This is a firm commitment which after careful review, has been reaffirmed on a number of occasions. In the circumstances it is unlikely that a useful purpose would be served by a meeting which you proposed.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not be fobbed off with such a reply. I challenge him to lead a deputation from the GLC to see the Minister. Let us see whether he is prepared to back up his words or whether they are meaningless. I shall gladly join him in making it a bipartisan deputation. Let the right hon. Gentleman show us whether he meant what he said several hours ago and offer to lead the deputation.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) expressed the wish that neither Front Bench would commit itself too far on the Port of London Authority. I will go no further this morning than to read from column 971 of Hansard of 9th May, when the Prime Minister said:
Commercial criteria must be the test against which facilities of this type are used. There will be no long-term future for this country if we continue permanently to subsidise facilities for which there are no uses."—[Official Report, 9th May 1978; Vol. 949, c. 971.]

Mr. Spearing: There are three matters that arise. First, is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Lloyd's List today 21 ships are shown as using the upper docks, which proves that there is a use for them? Secondly, does he agree that the response of the Prime Minister, which he has quoted and which has been constantly reprinted in the press, was in specific response to a point that I made concerning the subsidies to Continental ports which, in comparison with London, would take


much more trade from London if commercial criteria were applied and therefore the trade of London would be that much reduced? Although he may agree with what the Prime Minister said, would he not agree that the report which he has quoted was in that context because that was the question that I put to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Finsberg: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I occasionally do like to agree with him. The Prime Minister's reply was perfectly clear. It was not equivocal, which was perhaps unusual. He made it perfectly clear that these matters must be judged in a commercial context. The hon. Member must fight his battles with his own Prime Minister. He is quite used to doing it, and will not need much help from me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) made a valuable contribution and reminded the House of the fascinating speech that he made on 12th July 1976 when we had another important debate upon the problems of Greater London. He supported the view that there ought to be a Question Time for London and reminded the House of the sabotage by Labour Members of vital clauses in the GLC General Powers Bill which would have helped retain jobs in London.
The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) said that he did not agree with a bi-partisan approach. Those were almost his opening words. I recall that before he came to this House he was leader of the Wandsworth borough council. It is noteworthy that the good citizens of Wandsworth so appreciated his non-agreement with a bi-partisan approach that they took the opportunity to change the political control of Wandsworth when they were given the chance. The hon. Member said firmly that he wanted jobs to come back. I somehow do not think that the policies he was putting forward are likely to persuade many employers to put their money into jobs in any part of the country, sincere though he is. I accept his sincerity. But sincerity does not, alas, create jobs. He feared that there would be little growth in jobs provided by private enterprise in inner cities.
If private enterprise listens to the hon. Member's words even fewer people will

be prepared to invest because it is his philosophy that is driving people away. They will not invest their money to be hectored and lectured on planning agreements and their responsibilities. Private enterprise will do the job but it needs to do it under fair conditions. It will not do a job if it is to be hamstrung, taxed out of existence, and told that it is antisocial but will be tolerated until such time as the Socialist millennium comes—which, pray God, will never happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) reminded us, not that we needed reminding because it is apparent for all to see, that the worst social conditions are usually to be found in those areas so long dominated by Labour councils. The London County Council was a perfect example. From 1933, for about 30 years or more, inner London rotted under Socialist control. Most of the inner London metropolitan boroughs were under Labour control and similarly rotted. Therefore, there is nothing to be proud of when looking at the record of the Labour Party in Greater London.
My hon. Friend analysed the problems of council tenants and put the blame for the failure of many of the transfer schemes on the mechanics. I think that all of us would agree, speaking from a nonpartisan point of view, that much of the trouble comes from councils controlled by either party in that the systems of transfer do not work properly. Most letters in our constituency mailbags complain of the inability, under a Conservative-controlled GLC or a Labour-controlled GLC, to get any sensible transfer offers. That is equally so under Camden borough council, whether Labour or Conservative-controlled.
I support what my hon. Friend said. It is right to get on the record that the housebuilding of this Government is one of the worst since the war. That failure by the Government, too, is making a contribution to the problems of Greater London.
My hon. Friend went on to say that he was sorry for council tenants. He thought that they were being shabbily treated. They are. But they know precisely how to act. What upset the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham), when he and I appeared on television in the


"London Programme", was the fact that many more council tenants in London than ever before had voted Conservative in May to show their disapproval of Labour-controlled borough councils. They are going to do it in ever-increasing numbers when they realise that it is only the Labour Party that has deprived them of the right that everyone else has—to own their own homes. What they are not prepared to tolerate any longer is to be the captive serfs of Socialism.

Mr. Arthur Latham: The hon. Gentleman cannot ignore the fact that, on that edition of the "London Programme", a rather different pattern emerged in inner London, where people in tower blocks and without the opportunity of gardens are deprived of the result of council house sales. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman was extremely selective on that programme. He now wants to accept one statistic, but he completely rejected the other statistic, which suggested that one factor in the election results was the racist speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Finsberg: I could quote the racist writings of the Prime Minster and others from the late Richard Crossman's Diaries. I do not think there is any merit in pursuing that argument too far, because some of the most vicious statements have come from right hon. and hon. Members opposite. I do not think that we will pursue the point any further because otherwise hon. Members opposite might regret it.
I turn now to the speech by the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), who is always listened to in the House with the very greatest respect. He will be missed as a good Londoner.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) took pride in the fact that he had not listened at all to what I had said, and then misrepresented it.

Mr. Finsberg: My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has his own views of most people's speeches. On occasion I would agree with him, but I think that tonight, as this may well be the last occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman speaks, I would like to take a much more charitable view. The

right hon. Gentleman said in our last debate on foreign affairs that that might be the last occasion on which he would speak in the House, so I think that he and I are guesssing pretty well that it will be an October election. I do not want to spoil what I was saying about the right hon. Gentleman because I genuinely respect him—indeed, I respected him long before I came to the House—as a superb Londoner. The House will be the poorer when he is not here.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to some of the problems that he felt were affecting housing in London. He said that outer London was not making its fair contribution of housing aid to inner London. There are two schools of thought on this issue.
The facts produced by a Department of the Environment survey three years ago showed that many of the nominations made by inner London boroughs to both the GLC and some of the outer London boroughs were not being taken up. There are two ways of helping inner London. One is by taking land from outer London boroughs and building; the other is to let the outer London boroughs, which know their areas best, build and then offer places to inner Londoners.
The facts show that many of the nominations were not being taken up—indeed, I think that about 30 per cent. were not being take up. Until 100 per cent. of the nominations are taken up, I am not sure that it is fair to be as critical as the right hon. Gentleman was of the outer London boroughs.
I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman on one thing. He praised ILEA. He must be one of the few people so to do. I agree that there is no need to attack ILEA on political grounds, because it stands condemned by vast numbers of parents on grounds of educational inefficiency, extravagance and lower standards. And this is clear again from many of our post bags. I do not attack ILEA politically, but I do attack it educationally, and to me that is very much more important, because in the end I am concerned to make certain that children coming out of schools in inner London are as well qualified as children from outer London or elsewhere in the country, and I genuinely do not believe that that is happening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford brought us back to reality with a bang. He exposed some of the nonsenses from Labour Members and reminded us of the need to increase differentials and to reduce high taxation.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) attacked London Transport and was worried about buses travelling in convoy—the famous No. 11 buses running together for protection. That happened long before the system was run by the GLC. Buses in convoy have occurred in London since the creation of the London Passenger Transport Board by the late Herbert Morrison. It is nothing new, and I doubt whether any debate will ever take place when we do not have to refer to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) asked whether we should reconsider the redistribution of London's available assets. I am not certain whether the assets are there in sufficient quantities to redistribute, but my hon. Friend was right when he exposed some of the planning nonsenses and the language used by planners, such as "private open space". One gets into difficulties if one starts making comparisons with the American language, for example lift and elevator, but what becomes even more difficult is when one talks of "making speeches". One can make a speech in this House only if one is fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) can occasionally make speeches if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Members of the American House can have their speeches read into the record, which you might agree my hon. Friend might have managed more successfully—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accept the proposition.

Mr. Finsberg: Well, it will not be much longer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but an enormous amount was said tonight and I think that it needs to be covered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) demonstrated clearly that ODPs are driving firms away from London and losing us more and more jobs.
What I did not quite understand in the speech of the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) was her comment upon the docklands proposed experiment. Nobody has suggested that the whole of docklands should be thrown wide open free of restrictions. What has been said over and over again by Mr. Cutler is "Let us experiment on a few acres to see what can be done to help small businesses. Free them from virtually all restrictions except those concerned with health and safety". I believe that that experiment ought to be tried. I am certain that Government and local government in action will produce no jobs. Capitalism can bring life back to those areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) made the point that small firms can make a major contribution to providing more jobs, and he was right to point out the unique position of the City of London which makes a great and invaluable contribution to our economy—a contribution which many Labour Members would gladly do without because they do not understand the unique position of the City of London.
When my hon. Friend went on to talk about some of the problems in Covent Garden, again the Government did not understand that public expenditure which shows a good return is very different from that so often practised by this Government where public expenditure just goes down the drain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), focusing on youth employment, made the point that is accepted by everybody outside Government, that the Employment Protection Act has contributed to the loss of job opportunities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) drew attention to the clear failure of the 1974 Rent Act, and I place on record my tribute to him for what he has tried to do to get some of the empty properties let by proceeding with his ideas of short-holds.
The opening words of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) stimulated the Minister and me to listen with even greater care than we would have done to what he had


to say. Certainly, since his election victory he has been assiduous in attending to his duties. He told us how small firms could make a positive contribution to an increase in skills, and he made an eloquent plea for saving his local hospital in the interests of employment and of social balance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) stressed the need for more time to be devoted to debates on London affairs. In particular, he drew attention to what the PSA is doing by proposing to open luxurious headquarters in Middlesbrough. I do not believe that the PSA has justified itself sufficiently to allow it to go to Middlesbrough with this major dispersal. I think that we want to look at the PSA to see if it is justifying its existence.
In his intervention in this particular debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, helping my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins), clearly showed that there is at least an injustice and at worst, maladministration, on the part of the Department of Transport. If the Government will not budge, I hope that someone will refer the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
Not too much divides Londoners on this issue of jobs—

Mr. Anthony Berry: I am sure that we are all grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to so many hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, but I should like to express my surprise at the absence of the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies), who was one of the 22 Labour Members who entered the Ballot for the debate in which we are now taking part. I am wondering why he is not here, but since he is not, I feel he would like me to say that had he been here he would have wished to praise the GLC for taking one very important decision which affects his constituency and mine, namely, the building of the North-South road. It was not in the programme as planned by the Labour GLC. It is now firmly in the programme. It will be of tremendous value to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and to mine, both on industrial and environmental grounds. Therefore, in his absence, I should like to say on behalf of his constituents and mine how grateful we are to

the Tory GLC for putting this road in the programme.

Mr. Finsberg: Of course, I cannot say why the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) is not here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) has the authority of the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) to make that statement? I take it that he has that authority.

Mr. Finsberg: I am sure that question was not addressed to me. I cannot answer for the hon. Member for Enfield, North. All I can say is that it is correct for Members who have not entered their names into the Ballot to speak. It seems to me rather off for substantial numbers of hon. Members who have entered their names into the Ballot not to turn up and to take part.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Finsberg: I am sorry, but no. I have given way very generously. I should like to continue. For a short while I should like to be non-controversial. Those Members who sit for London seats are getting sick and tired of the dog-in-the-manger attitude of many of our colleagues from outside London who do not, and will not, understand London's problems. It is clear that ODPs should go. It is clear that IDCs should go. No one will ever know how many jobs have been lost to London just because people cannot be bothered to go through the paraphernalia of completing IDC applications.
The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act will now permit London to advertise its opportunities. I want to place on record my tribute to four Labour Members who had the courage to vote for the particular clauses in that Act, which would have given the GLC power to guarantee certain loans. They were the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), the hon. Member for Paddington and the right hon. Member for Fulham. Alas, Londoners who are jobless will recall that the Members for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett), Hackney, South and Shoreditch, Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), Tooting (Mr. Cox),


Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), Brent, East (Mr. Freeson), Edmonton (Mr. Graham), Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), Peckham (Mr. Lamborn), Bermondsey, Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran), Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and Newham, South, all went into the Lobby to deny the GLC the opportunity of providing job opportunities. The record is clear, and the columns of Hansard and the Division List will show exactly what has happened.
I sum up what London has suffered under this Government. First, the Labour GLC has sought powers, which were endorsed by the subsequent Conservative GLC, to assist industry, to lend for industrial building, to guarantee rents, and to guarantee industrial loans. All these were vetoed by Liberal and Labour Members in the Commons, with the four honourable exceptions that I have mentioned, despite the findings of a Select Committee of this House. I think that it is without precedent that a Select Committee report on a Private Bill has been rejected by this House.
The Inner Urban Areas Bill will give local authorities neither the full powers nor the resources to tackle the problems, and it is clearly inferior to the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act which I have already discussed.
Thirdly, on the question of Trammell Crow, the investment which is a development would provide 12,000 jobs. The GLC has been stopped from guaranteeing the finance because the Government persuaded Labour Members to delete the clauses. The Secretary of State has powers under the Industry Act. He has been dithering for more than 12 months and eventually, if the scheme falls through, that is another 12,000 jobs lost as a result of inactivity on the part of this Government.
On partnerships, limited funds and detailed Government control exist and money will be available only on main programmes. Locally determined scheme allocations have been halved in four years. The GLC asked for £35 million. It was given £20 million. In dockland there has been less bickering between the five riparian boroughs and the Tory GLC

than ever before. The press release from the Docklands Joint Committee on 27th July showed that £233 million is to be spent on dockland. This is a solid contribution to housing, transportation and jobs.
It is noteworthy that no Liberal Member has been present throughout this debate. The Liberals' sole contribution to the wellbeing of London was their effort on 24th May when the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), as Hansard records, led the Socialists into the Lobby to delete job opportunity clauses from the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill. No wonder the Liberals lost their seats, both London parliamentary seats and on the GLC, and Londoners will not lightly forget them.
This has been a long and interesting debate. The debate could have been conducted on a high note free from party bias. Over 20 Labour Members chose to put this item down and to debate it. Thirteen have not troubled to join us, and others drifted away.

Mr. Ronald Brown: And not one Tory Member.

Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Member is, as always, totally inaccurate. If he can read, he will notice that the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton was on the list. Alas, the hon. Member cannot read. The hon. Member chose to be political. He must not grumble if we take up his challenge and we give as good as we got or, I like to think, better than we got. Certainly the contributions from my hon. Friends were not merely better; they outnumbered those made by Labour Members, and there are fewer Conservative Members for Greater London constituencies than there are Labour Members.
On unemployment, the Labour Party has no case. It has failed abjectly and Londoners know this. What Londoners want is to complete the treble as rapidly as possible. They now have under their belt the GLC and the LBA. They want the third scalp—the Government, and they will have that as soon as the Government have the guts to let them vote.

3.0 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): I had intended to open my remarks by suggesting


that we have had a fairly bipartisan debate, but I can hardly do that after the contribution of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me if from time to time I stray into his had habits.
It has been a long, wide-ranging and useful debate. I do not wish to sound patronising when I say that I think that we have all learned from one another during the debate. I am glad that we have had the opportunity to discuss London's problems, especially employment. The House will understand if I tend to concentrate on employment. I think that it would be too much for even a full-blown Minister for London to reply satisfactorily to the many and varied matters that have been raised. I readily give the assurance for which a number of hon. Members have asked, namely, that I shall pass on to my right hon. Friends the relevant Ministers the various views and feelings that have been expressed and the suggestions that have been made.
As my hon. Friends repeatedly observed—Opposition Members have made the same point—there have been tendencies in the past for hon. Members from other parts of the country to overlook the severe problems that London faces. Too often horizons are limited to Whitehall, The Mall, Piccadilly Circus and glimpses of dockland, Hackney, Islington, Battersea and Brixton through the windows of trains or cars. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) said, that gives people a false impression. It must be put firmly on the record that London has serious problems, especially certain parts of the capital, some of which are not more than a longish stone's throw away from where we are now sitting.
My hon. Friends quoted a number of graphic statistics on London's unemployment problems and I shall quote one or two statistics as well. Unemployment in the Greater London area in July stood at 4·1 per cent. That may not seem particularly high compared with the national average of 6·5 per cent., but it must be remembered that 4·1 per cent. means that over 158,000 people are unemployed in London. In July, London's unemployed represented nearly 10·5 per cent. of all those unemployed in Great Britain. There were more unemployed in London than

in the West Midlands, the South-West or the Northern regions.
It is true that the total number of unemployed in London is now nearly 16,000 less than it was a year ago, but we are still left with the total of over 158,000 people without work. That figure is deeply disturbing but it does not tell the whole story. Over half of the total were registered at inner London offices, a total of over 80,000. That is a figure to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) referred.
Hon. Members have pointed to the decrease in employment in London. Between 1971 and 1976–1976 is the latest year for which we have figures—the number in employment in the Greater London area fell by 230,000, or 5·8 per cent. In the same period employment in manufacturing fell by more than 24 per cent. There has been a shift from manufacturing to services that has taken place nationally in recent years. Manufacturing employment declined nationally by 10 per cent. in the same five years. However, in London we see the trend superimposed on an overall decline in employment.
I do not want to indulge in a sterile debate about whether the decline in jobs was caused by the movement of working people from London or whether they followed the jobs. The fact remains that there has been a substantial decline in both people and jobs. That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. People have often wanted to move for good reasons—for example, to get away from overcrowding and to seek a more pleasant environment. Those of us who represent inner London areas are familiar with those good reasons. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) made some valid points. Incidentally, I join the hon. Member for Hampstead in paying my tribute to my right hon. Friend for all the work that he has done for Londoners in his long membership of the House.
Jobs have gone also for understandable reasons such as congestion and the lack of physical space for expansion. Space has sometimes been unavailable because of inadequate planning policies. I agree very much with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) on that score. At times there have been shortages of manpower.


But now I think that there is a realisation that this process is being carried too far. Just as important, there is a realisation that the process leaves a fundamentally imbalanced population and industrial structure behind.
I have already referred to the rapid decline in manufacturing jobs. As for the movement of people, all too often it has been those with skills—those in what the economists call the higher socioeconomic categories—who have moved. It is the poor, the unskilled and the disadvantaged—the black and disabled—who get left behind. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shore-ditch referred to the elderly. That is also very true. This is, of course, particularly true in the inner areas. In fairness, it is a feature which inner London has in common with the other inner cities.
These are some facets of the London problem. The facts about London have, I think, been submerged in the past; but the Government have seen them accurately. The problems of London are increasingly being brought to national attention, not least because of the efforts of London Members, such as my hon. Friends, who have campaigned vigorously on London's behalf.
I turn now to the effect of this awareness on the policy of the Government. In doing so, I think that we should remember the total inaction of the Conservative Administration regarding employment in London. I shall come back to that point later.
The principal and major initiative taken by the Government is our inner cities policy. I think that this goes right to the heart of London's problems. Of the seven partnerships set up in England, three are in London, involving a total of eight boroughs. These partnerships will receive a total of over £90 million under the urban programme in the period up to 1981. They have already had £30 million under last year's special inner city construction package.
In addition to the partnerships—Lambeth, Hackney-Islington and docklands—Hammersmith, as a programme authority, is to receive a substantial urban programme allocation. All the boroughs involved in partnerships will receive the powers to assist industry contained in the

Inner Urban Areas Act. In the partnership areas these powers will be very considerable. Boroughs will be able to give grants to help with rents paid by firms taking new leases. They will be able to give interest-free loans for up to two years for site preparation and they will be able to give interest-free relief grants for small firms. But the effect of the Act will not be confined to the partnerships. In all, 13 London boroughs will have powers to make 90 per cent. loans for the acquisition of land and for carrying out works and will be able to declare industrial improvement areas.
I want to say something about dock-lands. I cannot add much in detail to the statement on the docks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but the fact that the Government have not endorsed closure of the Royals is a mark of the weight that we attach to the serious human, social and environmental problems of docklands. The docklands partnership, with a £15 million a year allocation under the urban programme, is concerned primarily with the industrial redevelopment of dock-lands, and the Inner Urban Areas Act will add to its powers in this respect.
The Opposition have really sat on the fence as regards the question of dock closures. Their transport spokesman today criticised the Government's action, but did not offer any alternative solution. Despite the shelter that the hon. Member for Hampstead sought from the Prime Minister's remarks, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) demonstrated had been taken out of context, we are entitled to ask whether the Opposition believe that market forces should have been allowed to take full effect in the docks, just as they would have liked to see happen with British Leyland, Chrysler and a number of other similar cases. The short answer is that that is their policy. That is what they want, but they do not seem to be prepared to say so. Perhaps that is because, with the possibility of a General Election drawing nigh, they do not want to say it out loud. After all, it would not go down too well alongside their phony advertisements on dole queues.
The urban programme commitment is only a portion of the total amount that will be spent by public authorities and the


partnerships. The hon. Member for Hampstead referred to the estimate of £233 million to be spent by public authorities over the next three years. I was glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to that, because it is the sort of thing that needs advertising, but he did not say that £150 million of that money is coming direct from the Government. I agree with Sir Hugh Wilson, the chairman of the Docklands Committee, who has described this as the best thing that has happened to London's docklands, which he claims will become an area in which Londoners will be proud to live and work.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: Is the Minister saying that youth unemployment is not at the highest-ever level in London, on the half-term figures? Does he not also expect that at the end of term the figures will be even higher? He seems to be glossing over this matter very easily.

Mr. Grant: I am not glossing over youth unemployment. I shall come to it later. When I referred to the phoney advertisement, nearly every hon. Member knew what I was getting at—Saatchi and Saatchi and its moonlighting employees.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the Trammell Crow application for aid under section 8 of the Industry Act. It is being considered by the Government and is being given the normal appraisal of such applications, including consideration by the Industrial Development Advisory Board and the decision will be announced as soon as possible.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The Minister has obviously been briefed on this matter. Can he remind us of the date that the application was received by the Minister?

Mr. Grant: I cannot do that off the cuff, but the hon. Gentleman has given his estimate of the time and I have no reason to quarrel with it. I am sure that he is about right.
Let me put a question to the hon. Gentleman. Why do the Opposition not believe that private enterprise cash could do the job? They are so concerned about public expenditure, but there is a touch of inconsistency here. In addition, on the last two occasions

when the Government have sought more money to be provided for section 8 cases, the Opposition have voted against us. They do not seem to support section 8. I wonder what is their real attitude towards Trammell Crow.

Mr. Finsberg: Our belief is that the Trammell Crow deal could and should better have been done by the GLC under powers of loan guarantee and not by grants.

Mr. Grant: That does not alter the fact that it is being considered under the Industry Act and the Opposition, were they in a position to vote again on section 8, would have to vote against it—if they were to be consistent—and that would be the end of Trammell Crow.
The increased urban programme allocations and the Act powers are, in effect, only the more formal and visible signs of the inner city policy. Just as important is the commitment given in the White Paper to give an inner city dimension to the Government's main policies and programmes. Thus, for example, when my Department considered the extension of the small firms employment subsidy earlier this year, we decided to extend it to the partnership areas of London as well as to the assisted areas. This subsidy will, I hope, be of substantial benefit to the partnership areas of London where the fostering of small manufacturing firms is rightly seen as a key element in regeneration.
We have also given an inner city priority to the special temporary employment programme, which will be of great relevance to inner London, offering, as it does, the opportunity to combine temporary employment for the long-term unemployed with projects of community value such as environmental works.
An essential element in the partnership concept is the bringing together of the many statutory agencies both in central and local government to ensure a coordinated effort to regenerate the inner areas. Too often in the past what has been done has been piecemeal, and genuine efforts to improve in one field have had undesirable side effects in another. Through the partnerships, we aim to avoid this and to draw up co-ordinated programmes of action.
I should like to give an example of how I think that partnership is beginning


to work, and to work well. I take the example of my own borough of Islington. There is no doubt that there has been a real problem of mismatch of both accommodation and jobs in the past. But Islington, with substantial Government help, has been tackling the employment problem. It was very clear that while education, housing and retraining were vital, none of this would really matter overmuch if there were no suitable accommodation to attract employers.
We had over 1 million sq ft of empty industrial floor space in the borough, in mostly old, mostly dilapidated slum property. The private sector was quite disinterested in improving it, and one understands why. But the Government's allocation of construction money was applied mostly to economic regeneration. The result now is that nearly 90,000 sq ft of new accommodation and 15,000 sq ft of improved floor space in existing buildings will be available in the borough by next March. Plans exist for a further 30,000 sq ft of improved floor space with only the reservation that still more resources are needed for that.
I am told that this new space, in small units, with proper loading facilities and proper services—the kind of thing that employers want—is nearly all spoken for and that in some cases it could be let several times over.
There is now a central register of all the available accommodation. A small firms advisory centre is about to be set up. It is fair to say that already many jobs in the borough have been saved and others have been created. Various other local initiatives are in the pipeline.
Again, I am told that each job saved or created is costing as little as £3,000, and often nearer to £2,000, in relation to capital expenditure. That is a pretty good bargain. It is an immensely encouraging story.
Again, the council's initiatives have awoken private sector interests. Firms are now asking not only for floor space but for sites on which to build their own accommodation.
Of course, the borough needs more resources. But this shows that a very great deal is stirring in the inner city and that the inner city problems are certainly not insoluble, particularly given the vigorous

co-operation of local authorities and the Government to get things under way. Here the Government have given a very firm lead.
I turn to the manpower measures that my Department and the Manpower Services Commission have introduced to ease the problem of unemployment in London. So far, these measures, including the temporary employment subsidy, the job creation programme and the work experience programme, have helped over 33,000 people in London. This represents an enormous amount of assistance. We are building steadily on this.
Earlier this year the job release scheme was extended to cover London. As I have already said, the small firms employment subsidy now applies in the partnership areas. The two new programmes that we are currently introducing, the youth opportunities programme and the special temporary employment programme, under which London has been allocated a total of £12 million, will further develop the assistance that we are giving to the young unemployed and those who have been unemployed for long periods.
The MSC has set itself an ambitious target for the implementation of these programmes in London. I very much hope that London boroughs, trade unionists and employers will respond fully to the need for projects.
We are very conscious of the point raised by several right hon. and hon. Members about skill shortages, even at this time of high unemployment. Mention has been made of pay policy and the effect of wage restraint on skills and differentials. One has to accept that of course pay policies have had an effect in this respect. But all I can say about that is that we believe that, despite that, there are overriding arguments in favour of a policy of this kind, and this House has very recently accepted such a policy.
Training, none the less, is a key element in this. Through the industrial training boards we have taken measures to boost the number of training places for young people in industry. Our retraining programme for adults—the training opportunities scheme—has been dramatically expanded in London since 1974. Last year nearly 12,000 adults completed TOPS courses in London. That is very nearly double the number that completed courses in 1974. It was then


6,300. A major skillcentre expansion programme is planned to take place over the next few years, with new facilities scheduled, which should provide more than 1,000 extra places.

Mr. Jessel: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. However, I am slightly concerned. In view of the fact that it was the Under-Secretary of State for Transport who asked me to speak in this debate rather than later, and as in the presence of officials he gave a definite undertaking that if I did so I would get a reply to the points I made in this debate, and as it was definitely arranged that a brief would be sent from the Department of Transport across to the Department of Employment during this debate, can the hon. Gentleman now say that he will honour the undertaking given by his colleague and will give a reply to the points that I have raised?

Mr. Grant: I was not asked by my colleague to give a specific reply, but I shall certainly respond to the hon. Gentleman if he will have a little patience. I think that he ought to have a little patience, because he was the last to come into the Chamber to enter the debate. He jumped the queue, as it were, to get into the debate, so he ought to bear with us for a little longer on this matter.
Other hon. Members made points which must be dealt with. I want to deal with the question of dispersal before dealing with the hon. Member's point. I do not think that anyone anticipates that I am likely to be able, during a Consolidated Fund debate, to change the Government's policy and their firm commitment to dispersal. Strong views have been expressed tonight on both sides and I undertake to draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friends. I must make the same response to the pleas for designation of Park Royal and Paddington.
I shall not reply to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) in the detail that he would have had if he had initiated his own debate later. The dispute between the GLC and the Department of Transport has been continuing for a long time. I am assured by my colleagues in that Department that they have gone into the matter personally, repeatedly and in detail. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the GLC. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has

written no fewer than four times since 1976 and he has seen a deputation. I can therefore assure the House in good conscience that the GLC arguments have been exhaustively considered.
I do not want to go into the detail of the argument tonight—I do not think the House would wish me to do so—but I think that the hon. Member has painted a somewhat contorted picture. The Department has repeatedly considered whether it would be right and proper to attempt to bend the rules so that an additional payment of the kind he is suggesting could be made, but after the most careful consideration it remains of the view that there would be inadequate justification for doing so. I hope that that will help to convince the hon. Gentleman and the GLC that there is not much prospect of a change of view. However, I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Jessel: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that my remarks were contorted, would he be content to have the matter resolved by the Ombudsman and for the Government to abide by any recommendation of the Ombudsman as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg)?

Mr. Grant: It is not for me to decide whether something should go to the Ombudsman, or what his decision or the Government's view on it might be. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to take the case there if he feels that this is a matter of maladministration. That is entirely a matter for him.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is there any point in the Civil Service unions concerned with dispersal, which are getting from the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for the Environment a refusal to reconsider the dispersal problem going to the Department of Employment to find someone in high office who would at least argue their case with the relevant Ministries? The Civil Service unions find that their sponsoring Departments go through the motions but do not seem to accept that over a period of nine years there are changes in London employment. The Secretary of State for Employment and his junior Ministers could probably put that factor across very effectively.

Mr. Grant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his vote of confidence. I could not, however, recommend that course. We are discussing a Government policy. The sponsoring Minister is the Lord Privy Seal and the unions are certainly well aware of that. I am sure that they have been in discussion with him over a period about these matters. That is the proper way to deal with it, but where employment matters are involved my Department would have a view and would express it accordingly. I cannot, however, take the hon. Gentleman further than that.
I regret that here I shall lapse into the fault displayed by the hon. Member for Hampstead and be partisan. I said earlier that in Government the Conservatives did very little to help or recognise London's employment problems or many of the other difficulties that have been mentioned tonight. On the other hand, they seem to have some quite interesting ideas now that they are in Opposition. Some of them are especially interesting to London.
One of the most interesting has come from the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). I quote from the Daily Telegraph of 27th June—a most impeccable source, as I am sure Conservative Members will agree. It states:
Sir Geoffrey Howe, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, launched a dramatic set of proposals last night aimed at reviving some of Britain's declining industrial cities.
He emphasised that his scheme for 'enterprise zones' on the lines of 'free trade zones' was a personal view, but Sir Geoffrey's likely position as Chancellor in a new Conservative Government, is certain to add immense weight to the proposals.
If we look at what the right hon. and learned Member was proposing, we find that he suggested that, in order to make his scheme workable, the various restrictions which would have to go would include detailed planning control. Public authorities which owned land would be required, with in a specified time, to dispose of it to private bidders, by auction in the open market. Entrepreneurs in enterprise zones would be exempt from development land tax and perhaps from rates as well. No Government grants or subsidies would be payable to any enterprise within the area. There goes the small firms employment subsidy.
The right hon. and learned Member proposed that businesses might also be exempted from the workings of price control and pay policy, and from the provisions of the Employment Protection Act 1975, which would certainly please the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), were he still with us.
That seems to me to be a totally gruesome recipe for a return to Rachmanism and to social deprivation and squalor in the inner city. I really wonder what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Shadow Chancellor knows about the inner city. He seems to me to be nothing more than a soporific symbol of the stockbroker belt. The contrast is a very odd one if we relate his remarks to a speech made a little earlier in the year by his right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who said:
It is a depressing spectacle to watch a small but vocal and apparently influential section of the Tory Party bow down to worship the free market gods which brought so much squalor, so many slums, so much social divisiveness and injustice.
He was the Secretary of State for the Environment, of course, and he did not talk in that way when he had that job, nor did he act very meaningfully to change the situation. But he is dead right now, and that is why he languishes on the Opposition Back Benches below the Gangway.
The Conservative Party, whatever it may say and whatever advertisements it may put out, remains traditionally the party of high unemployment. However Conservative Members shed their crocodile tears, and however they may seek to equivocate, nothing has really changed. But let us just look at what their policies would produce. I am quite convinced that the return of a Conservative Government would produce a rise in unemployment. We agree that unemployment is at an unacceptably high level, but it would produce a rise of frightening dimensions, and London would certainly suffer, as would the rest of Britain.
We know that the Conservative Party would savagely cut public expenditure, and do it as an act of faith, because it is part of the act of faith. If it did so, it would inevitably spell an equally savage reduction in public sector jobs. Indeed, if we look at County Hall, we see that this is the path that the Conservatives have begun to follow. Let us look at what


has happened in Wandsworth under the new Conservative council. Vital public sector jobs have been frozen. The hon. Member for Hampstead should have a look at that and tell us whether that is a desirable thing, and the effect that it is having on jobs. If the Conservatives were to come in, it would not be just the top brass at the town hall who would go, and they know it. It would be all sorts of other people in crucial areas of public service.
The Conservatives would scrap price control and dividend control, as we know. They would reduce, if not scrap, the subsidies on rents, so that rents would soar. We know that they would opt, in effect, for a wages free-for-all. It would not be much else. We know that it would not only lead us back to the social divisiveness and the alarming inflation which was piling up when we took over in 1974. It would damage our competitiveness, it would undermine sterling, and jobs would vanish as a consequence.
We know also what they would do about the docks. I put the question earlier to the hon. Member for Hampstead, and we have not had a straight answer. But we know their view of the industrial rescue operations which the Labour Government have carried out in respect of cars and shipbuilding to save thousands of jobs, and we know, too, that their opposition to these steps, if they had the opportunity, would be put into practice irrespective of the disastrous job effects. Yet this is the party which nevertheless has the temerity to criticise the Government's employment measures.
There is nothing constructive in the policies of the Opposition on employment. They have nothing to offer, apart from the spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition sitting on top of an industrial scrap heap.

Mr. Ronald Brown: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) talked about housing, but in his usual way of misleading the House he did not go on to explain that whereas there were 8,399 homes under construction in 1976–77, there will be only 2,500 under construction by the Tories in 1979–80. Further, perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on the hon. Member's statement that there

are 1,500 properties identified for sale, which will cost £327,000 in lost rents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) is taking advantage of the House. That was a very long intervention.

Mr. Grant: Perhaps I might respond briefly to that intervention. My hon. Friend made a very valid point. I add to it only that I found it extraordinary that the Opposition were able to claim that the Tory GLC was seeking to help people in inner London with their housing difficulties. Constituents whom I know have been seeking transfers and are now blocked because of the action of the GLC in selling council houses and putting a block on transfers. That is an extraordinary way to help solve the problems of people in inner London. What it is really doing is causing heartbreak.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)

3.32 a.m.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am very glad to raise this subject, because it appears that the Government are either reluctant or unable to come to a decision on the matter.
Last year, on 6th July, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
In the context of the Scotland and Wales Bill, the Government announced that in the post-devolution situation they would be anxious to see established in Scotland a Council for Higher Education, in respect of which the Assembly would play its part. We are pursuing this matter even in the pre-devolution situation, because it has met with a welcome in post-school education circles in Scotland. It is something that is well merited in its own right."—[Official Report, 6th July 1977; Vol. 934, c. 1228.]
After that, when nothing had happened for some months, earlier this year I introduced a Ten-Minute Bill which had all-party support to set up an inquiry into post-school education in Scotland in order to establish the basis upon which to plan a rational co-ordinated system of comprehensive tertiary education which would meet the manpower requirements of the nation and serve the interests and aspirations of those in the 16 to 19 age group.
The Government did not give my Bill their support, and the Educational Institute of Scotland, the largest teachers'


union, expressed the hope that the Secretary of State would proceed with the appointment of a tertiary education council without delay and that the necessary inquiry would be set afoot as soon as the council was in being. However, on 20th January of this year, the Secretary of State wrote saying
It would not be sensible in my view to combine this initiative"—
of setting up a council for tertiary education—
with the inquiry proposed in your Bill.
I am informed that the following education institutions in Scotland support an inquiry, and I believe that virtually all of them support the setting up of a council for tertiary education: the Scottish Trade Union Council, the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Scottish Further Education Association, the Association of Principals of Colleges of Further Education, the Association of Lecturers in Colleges of Further Education, the Association of Lecturers in Scottish Central Institutions and the Committee of Principals and Directors in Central Institutions in Scotland, the Federation of Associations of College Lecturers in Scotland, the Scottish Institute of Adult Education and the National Union of Students. That is formidable and powerful backing for an inquiry, and I believe that most if not all of these institutions support the setting up of a tertiary education council. One body, the Scottish School Teachers Association, argues in favour of setting up a Royal Commission on education in Scotland.
When nothing happened after this, on 8th May I put down a Question asking the Secretary of State
in view of the fact that he has asked for and has received many representations from interested bodies on the creation of a council for tertiary education and the closing date has been passed about one month ago, if he will make a statement on when he will come forward with firm proposals on the creation and powers of a council of tertiary education in Scotland.
The Under-Secretary of State answered on behalf of the right hon. Member, saying that the Secretary of State was
considering the comments received in response to the consultative paper issued in January, and hopes to be in a position to make an announcement soon."—[Official Report, 8th May 1978; Vol. 949, c. 391.]

As it was said that the right hon. Gentleman hoped to make a statement soon, I imagined that this would be done. In order to refresh his memory, I put down a further Question on 12th June asking whether he proposed to bring forward proposals in time to allow them to be debated before the Summer Recess. I am afraid to say that I received an equivocating reply which referred me to his previous answer.
Just in case the Secretary of State might have forgotten about the matter, I asked him again on 19th July whether he could give an assurance that a statement would be made before the recess. He confirmed that the proposal to establish a council had been generally welcomed in Scotland and that he hoped to make an announcement about this matter very shortly. I hope that, if nothing else, the Minister can give an undertaking that a statement on the subject will be made before the recess. After all, it was more than a year ago, on 6th July 1977, that the Secretary of State said that this council was well merited in its own right.
What is the background to the proposal to set up this council? As I have said, the vast majority of educational institutions and organisations, including the Scottish Trade Union Council, support the setting up of this body, as do the vast majority of political parties. Most educational institutions, with the exception of the universities, have argued strongly that a council for tertiary education should be not merely consultative but advisory. The difference between consultative and advisory is that a consultative council speaks when it is spoken to, whereas an advisory council makes recommendations when it feels strongly about a matter.
It seems to most educationists that in order to be really effective, this council must have a statutory right to give unsolicited advice to the Scottish Education Department, to Ministers, to national councils, to colleges, and even to universities to the extent that their role relates to other colleges in the post-school education sector in Scotland. Obviously a tertiary education council could not usurp the functions of the University Grants Committee, but it seems that it should have a role to play with an advisory as well as a consultative function. If it is to have any real influence


or exert any real pressure in major matters where the national interest might demand, it seems that it would be necessary for it to have an advisory role and not be as limited as was once suggested.
A further fundamental theme is the need for the new council to cover the whole of post-school education, including the role of the universities to the extent that they impinge on the work of other educational institutions in Scotland. To be effective, the council must have responsibility for the whole sector, including central institutions, colleges of further education, the CNAA, SCOTEC, SCOTBEC, the educational components of the Manpower Services Commission schemes, adult education and recurrent education.
The universities which have expressed reservations should not regard the setting up of the council as devolution by the back door. One of the main purposes of setting up such a council would be to gear post-school education institutions in Scotland to employment prospects, especially as there is now a golden opportunity for planning. This is particularly important in those colleges which are not universities, where there may be a duplication of effort in certain cases and a need to rationalise and co-ordinate provision of post-school education and training to make for the best possible use of available resources.
The examples of the remit which the Scottish Education Department has put forward as suitable for the new council appear most unsatisfactory. They suggest an extremely narrow remit—one that appears to be virtually limited to higher education rather than the whole of post-school education.
On the question of a Royal Commission or an inquiry into post-school education in Scotland, which is obviously closely related to the establishment of a tertiary education council, I feel sure that the Scottish Education Department will be well aware of the criticism put forward by many organisations of the narrowness of view taken by the Government document "Higher Education into the 1990s". Organisations such as the STUC, the EIS and SCOTBEC have told the Department in strong terms that they regard it as a disastrous mistake to consider higher education into the 1990s in a narrow sense

instead of the whole field of post-school education into the 1990s. It seems very important that the whole field should he taken fully into account.
Finally, as the Manpower Services Commission has more massive funds available than the Departments of Education, it is likely that Commission schemes will continue to grow, even when higher education, further education and adult education are having stringent limits put on expenditure. This means that it is all the more necessary that there should be full co-ordination between post-school education in Scotland and education elements of MSC schemes. At present the MSC is supposed to consult fully the Scottish Education Department and other national education bodies in Scotland before finalising its plans. This it does, but, even with the best will in the world and the excellent intentions of the MSC staff, consultation is not always carried out in advance and it is not always early enough. It seems that in the interests of young people and employers, or future employers, it is essential that the education work sponsored by the MSC in Scotland should fall within the remit of the council for tertiary education and any inquiry into post-school education.
Perhaps the Minister can tell the House and the education institutions in Scotland, which will be weighing his words with great care, when a decision will be made. I believe that they consider that if the Secretary of State does not come to a decision on this subject soon it may well become the responsibility of another Government. I sincerely hope that the Minister will respond to my request and at the very least promise a detailed statement before the recess.

3.44 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): The interest of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) in this subject is well known to me and many other hon. Members, and I commend him for it. Like him, I am anxious to make progress in this matter, but the hon. Gentleman must not underestimate the difficulties.
Everyone wants a council to be set up, but everyone has his own ideas what its terms of reference should be, and almost everyone in education seems to want to


sit on it. We have to reconcile many conflicting claims if we are to please the hon. Gentleman and the many people to whom he referred. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the major question on which my right hon. Friend was seeking views was whether the council should have a wide remit—extending to all post-school education—or whether it could more usefully concentrate on higher education proper—in universities and other institutions of similar standing. The advantages of the wider remit are, I think, well understood. Such a council would bring together individuals from all sectors, which are in many ways interrelated. It would enable an overall view to be taken of the education being provided for those who have left school. It would be able to consider how the education service can best provide for the needs of commerce and industry, for trained and educated manpower at all levels. Moreover, many education authority colleges now provide advanced courses alongside non-advanced courses, often with arrangements for progression from one course to another, and with shared facilities. A council restricted to higher education alone would touch on only one part of the work of these colleges. All this will, I am sure, be readily agreed.
On the other hand, we do not want the council's deliberations to become too diffuse. We have to consider whether it is realistic to expect one and the same body to function as an effective forum for the making of policy, and not as a mere talking shop, over the whole diverse area of tertiary education. The needs and problems of the 16 to 19 age group, in which the hon. Gentleman takes such a laudable interest—as indeed do the Government, as he well knows—are a world away from the high-level academic activities of the universities. Both are important. Both can be drawn under the umbrella of "tertiary education". They are not entirely unrelated. We are dealing with a system in which every element reacts with every other.
There is another factor we have had to take into account. It was fundamental to our concept of a council that the universities should be involved. Indeed, the idea had its origin in the need for a forum where university development could be looked at in the perspective of

the whole education system after devolution when universities remain reserved but other sectors are devolved.
The point that I want to emphasise is that the Government already have a very good adviser on university affairs—I mean the University Grants Committee. It would do no good, and probably a lot of harm, if we were to set up another advisory body covering the same ground. Thus we have had to consider with some care how the new council might be given an interest in university affairs, as it must have, without at the same time conflicting with the excellent work of the grants committee.
Then we have had to consider the longer term, in which it might prove desirable to set up some kind of executive body. Hon. Members may be aware of developments south of the border, where there are proposals under consideration to bring the maintained sector of higher education under a national body. This is not the place for me to comment on that. But we have had to consider whether the ideas under consideration could be translated, or ought to be translated, into Scottish terms. These will be matters for the Scottish Executive, in due course. Meantime, we have had to ask ourselves whether the new council ought to be given the remit of examining these issues, and we have had to consider what might be its own relation to a future executive body.
At the same time, we have been invited by the hon. Gentleman and others to consider setting up an ad hoc inquiry into one corner, as it were, of this large sector of education. As he knows, my right hon. Friend has not, and nor have I, ever considered that that was the right way forward. Its only significant effect would have been to delay the action we have been taking. We do not need an inquiry. We know the facts and the problems. What is needed is action, and that is what we have concerned ourselves with. I say all this so that hon. Members will not be misled into thinking that it has been a simple matter to devise a proper framework for this council.
We want a durable framework that will prove itself through the constitutional change that is ahead of us, and for many years afterward. We do not want a framework hastily cobbled together to meet what happen to be the pressing


needs of one moment but which might very quickly come to seem irrelevant. That is why we have quite deliberately taken time to get this right, to draft the right terms of reference and the right structure.
Hon. Members will be glad to know that we are very near a conclusion. My right hon. Friend intends to announce terms of reference very shortly, before the recess—and if the hon. Gentleman looks towards the end of this week he does not have to be much of a mathematician to realise that that will not be long. My right hon. Friend wants to give the council the broadest remit that he can within reason. Hon. Members will not expect me to anticipate his statement, but I hope that it will give them some satisfaction to know that they need be patient only a little longer.

JAPANESE LORRY IMPORTS

3.51 a.m.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It may seem perverse at this hour to want to discuss industrial development or the hazards of a developing industrial competition, but for many years this country has produced vehicles, particularly effective heavy vehicles. In my constituency there are at least two lorry firms which turn out products of very high standard. ERF and Foden's in Sandbach have long been known as heavy-vehicle makers, and we have a large pool of skilled engineering workers in the Crewe constituency.
It was therefore with considerable disquiet that we learned, some time ago, that it seemed to be the intention of at least one large Japanese firm—Hino Lorries—to begin to manufacture lorries inside Great Britain. This information was conveyed to us in a number of ways, but most noticeably by the firm itself which, although of Irish origin, made it clear that it was its intention either to manufacture in Great Britain itself or to bring into Great Britain from Ireland made-up lorries which were basically Japanese.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be aware that for a very long time now the British car and heavy vehicle industry has been exceedingly concerned about the whole situation of Japanese competition. It is really not enough to say that as a manufacturing

country one must take one's chance on an open market if there is clear evidence that that open market can be manoeuvred by other nations.
It is exceedingly difficult in modern industrial terms to prove whether vehicles of any kind are being dumped. Indeed, as modern industrial processes continue to develop, it becomes virtually impossible to get hold of the information on which charges of dumping can be proved. An even greater complication has arisen since the admission of the United Kingdom to the Common Market, because the original dumping procedures which we were able to apply at a British level have now passed, as it were, at one hand to the EEC Commission. That means that we would have even more complex processes to go through before we would, for example, be able to put into operation anti-dumping techniques in order to protect our own industry.
Therefore, when it seemed evident that an Irish firm acting as agent for Japanese lorries intended to invade the British market, I took action by going rapidly to the Department and asking it for the information that it had. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been not only exceedingly diligent but exceedingly helpful and has gone out of his way to obtain whatever information was available.
The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions was so disturbed by the information that it had received from various sources that it began to take action on its own. It agreed a certain number of procedures which would black Japanese vehicles if they were brought into this country. The Confederation's reasoning was very simple. It was that its members produced highly efficient vehicles and it was not prepared to see its market undermined by Japanese firms bringing their vehicles into this country, possibly at artificial price levels, and certainly at a price which we were told would be about £3,000 per lorry less than the cost of the British manufactured unit.
If that seems intransigent, I ask the House to consider the effect that the influx of heavy lorries from Japan would have on the British market. We have seen in Ireland, for example, that one small firm can take over 80 per cent. of the Irish vehicle market within a very short time of coming into operation. Indeed, it is


that firm which is now openly saying that it is its intention to move into Great Britain either through the back door, as it were, of assembling the lorries in Ireland or by setting up a factory unit in Great Britain itself.
After all, the British Government do not provide assistance to industry in such a biased or specific way that they could exclude assistance to any firm that could legitimately set up in a development or special development area. We could find ourselves in a bizarre situation in which the British Government and the British taxpayer, through the Industry Acts, were giving practical assistance to a foreign firm to set up a factory that would decimate the British heavy vehicle industry. I am sure no one doubts that before we accept such a situation we should take action.
The Minister has said—he has given me details of this—that he has an agreement with Japanese industry, which was negotiated at a very high level, which should ensure that no such dumping can take place and that no such unfair competition will be allowed within these shores. Indeed, the MITI undertaking appears to say that heavy goods vehicles will be excluded from the British market. I welcome that statement from Japan, but I must tell my hon. Friend that I have considerable reservations about the efficacy of such an undertaking.
After all, under Common Market legislation, it an Irish firm chose to import goods from Japan, to assemble heavy lorries in Eire and then re-export them to Great Britain as finished vehicles, there would be nothing that the Minister, the Department or the Government could do to stop that trade—and were they to make the slightest effort to stop that trade they would be told very firmly by the European Commission that they were seeking to distort the rules of the EEC. Distortion of competition is, as the Minister knows, one of the greatest crimes in the calendar of the Commission.
One of my strong objections to the Treaty of Rome has always been its calm assumption that the distortion of competition is a bad thing. As a Socialist, I believe that in the present economic situait is vital that we accept a certain degree of planning in our economy. That cannot be accomplished without Government

aid, without specific support for industries under attack and without special supplements to the workers and retraining schemes. If we are to be absolutely honest, all of these constitute a form of distortion of trade in its purest form.
Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will not be surprised if the engineers in my constituency become exceedingly alarmed at the repeated suggestion that such an Irish firm is to begin to manufacture vehicles in Great Britain.
I should like to say one or two things which occasionally should be said. If such a move should take place—we know we have the Minister's assurance that he does not think it is imminent—we should be in danger of finding ourselves faced with a situation which, in effect, would be the antithesis of democratic government.
If engineers in my constituency—knowing as they do that similar Japanese competition in other manufacturing industries in the North-West has led to the wholesale closure of factories and to the loss of jobs—felt that they could not rely upon the processes of government to protect their employment against unfair competition, they would be driven to take action which, in effect, would be extra-parliamentary action. They would seek to oppose this imposition upon the British market in any way that they were able.
If that meant blacking the importation of Japanese goods at the ports, refusing through their drivers' groups to drive Japanese heavy lorries, blacking the unloading of any lorry which was manufactured in Japan, it would be a line of action which would be condemned by this House and by many people in the media. I should not condemn it, because I believe that it is the responsibility of the House of Commons to look to the protection of men's jobs. It is certainly the responsibility of the House of Commons to look to the protection of an industry as important to us as the heavy goods vehicles industry. We have seen the perpetual inroad of Japanese cars into the ordinary car market. In spite of the many assurances which we have received year in and year out, we see the continual importation of Japanese cars, with the effect that has upon our domestic industry.
Therefore, can one blame the engineering unions if they say to the Minister "Do not say to us 'Be calm, we shall sort out


the situation and everything will be well in the future because we have this undertaking'"? We know that in the case of ordinary cars such undertakings have not been worth the paper they have been written on. We cannot sit quietly back and wait for the kind of complete flooding of the heavy goods vehicle market in Great Britain that we have seen even in a small market such as Ireland. Eighty per cent. of the heavy goods market in Ireland is now made up of Japanese goods. Translate that into British terms and one has a job investment and industry loss which would cause a bleeding of a major kind in an industrial situation. Frankly, our engineers do not intend to sit by and see that happen.
I demand of the Government two things. I demand that if there is the slightest danger that through Ireland, or, indeed, any other Community country, the Japanese appear to be mounting a major onslaught on the British heavy goods vehicle market, this Government will instantly and unilaterally, without argument, apply an importation ban, they will follow up that ban with an importation ban on parts for heavy goods lorries of Japanese origin and that they will make it quite clear to the Commission that, whether or not this is acceptable under Community rules, they will not stand by and see this industry devastated by unfair competition from outside. I know that it is difficult for my hon. Friend to give such an undertaking.
One of the hazards of our entry into the Community has been the total and devastating effect of the constant flow of manufactured imports into this country either from the other Community countries or from outside the Community. We were told that we should have access to a much greater market on entry. Far from that being the case, there has been a perpetual erosion of many of our overseas markets. We will not stand by and see this last and devastating invasion take place without taking strong action. I cannot state too strongly that I intend to fight in any way I can to resist such a tide. I trust that I shall have my hon. Friend's counsel and support.

4.6 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Michael Teacher): My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody)

has raised, with characteristic cogency and eloquence, an issue which is undoubtedly of major concern in the area she represents and which is certainly seen as constituting a major threat to the industry of which she has spoken.
It is true that for the past 18 months there have been regular rumours of an impending invasion of the United Kingdom truck market by Japanese Hino trucks assembled by J. Harris Limited in the Republic of Ireland. There have been few registrations of these vehicles in the United Kingdom so far. I know that my hon Friend is aware of this. The SMMT estimates that about 60 Irish-assembled Hino trucks were registered in the United Kingdom last year and 61 so far this year. It believes that about 40 of this year's imports were registered in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the House on 7th March. My right hon. Friend then indicated that the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry had agreed to give, as it put it, "strong administrative guidances", to the Japanese vehicle industry. These, among other things, covered heavy commercial vehicles. MITI gave an assurance that no heavy commercial vehicles would be shipped from Japan to the United Kingdom. This is, of course, with regard to direct exports to the United Kingdom. As we have always recognised, this leaves the question of indirect exports, whether manufactured in Ireland or, indeed, anywhere else.
My hon. Friend raised the question of an import ban if this threat were to materialise. As she knows, the Treaty of Rome provides that products produced in the Community are entitled to free circulation, and this will apply to the assembly of vehicle components on which Community duties have been paid just as to any other manufacture. This means that no further tariffs or any quantitative limitations may be applied against them under the treaty. It might be possible to challenge the origin of these vehicles on the ground that insufficient work had been done on them in Ireland to give them a right to Community origin, but this would not remove their right to free circulation in current circumstances.
We could seek Community agreement to the suspension of free circulation via


the origin regulations only if the United Kingdom had a quota on the same imports from the actual country of origin—in this instance Japan—and that was being frustrated.
That is the position in terms of the treaty. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are concerned about the potential problem. Although the Treaty of Rome permits products manufactured in Ireland to enjoy free circulation, I can assure my hon. Friend that we have made our concern well known and our views plain to the parties concerned. We are confident that while an understanding exists about restraint in this market sector there will not be any significant indirect exports of heavy commercial vehicles to the United Kingdom. If there were, that would clearly defeat the whole arrangement of administrative guidances volunteered by MITI, which, for example, as recent shipment figures have shown, has now begun to influence the volume of cars reaching Britain from Japan.
We also believe that Japanese manufacturers are sufficiently aware of the sensitivity of this sector of United Kingdom industry—I have reason to take this view—not to encourage exports to the United Kingdom of vehicles assembled elsewehere in the Community, even without guidance from MITI. Even so, I can assure my hon. Friend that we are watching what develops extremely closely.
I agree that the threat of sudden and substantial penetration into the United Kingdom market by Japanese or any other imported truck manufacturers is extremely serious. However, it is relevant to remember that our own truck industry can probably do rather more to improve its own performance. Despite the steady expansion of world markets for trucks over the past 10 years to 15 years, our industry has hardly managed to increase production. Of course, Japanese competition has been severe, especially in third world markets. However, other European countries have managed to increase their production and exports at a much faster rate than we have.
The reasons for our relatively poor performance are complex and I do not pretend that they can be easily stated. It is fair to observe that industrial relations have not been nearly as bad on the whole in the commercial vehicle industry as in

the car industry, even though disputes among component suppliers have sometimes made the production scheduler's job extremely difficult. Most of the reasons would seem to lie in a combination of under-investment in the past, inadequate production control and generally lower productivity than our main overseas competitors. Clearly, it is part of our problem to ensure that that situation is put right.
Although we have a quite large surplus on our balance of trade in commercial vehicles with the rest of the world—it was about £400 million last year—imports are rising rather faster than exports. Already we are only just keeping our head above water in our trade with the rest of the EEC. If Sweden is added, our trade is in deficit. Only in the past year, taking the first six months of this year and comparing them with the same period in 1977, import penetration in trucks has increased from 13 per cent. to 16 per cent. of the market. That is taking trucks alone and not including vans, so in that instance the increase cannot be ascribed to the Japanese. To that extent it remains true that our main competitors are still European manufacturers.
I turn to the matters that my hon. Friend made the gist of her remarks—namely, the activities of J. Harris Assemblers Ltd. As regards assembly in Ireland, I know that J. Harris Ltd. has been assembling Japanese Hino trucks under licence at Cloughran, near Dublin airport, since 1967. The firm has a substantial share of the market in Ireland. The Hino truck range is Japanese in design but Harris claims that it includes a significant proportion of EEC parts.

Mrs. Dunwoody: A likely story.

Mr. Meacher: That is the claim that is made. I am aware that at the end of June the firm announced that it intended to open a truck assembly plant in the Liverpool area in November. It is not the first time that such statements have been made.
We should not exaggerate the ease with which Hino vehicles could be sold in the United Kingdom even if such sales were tried. The United Kingdom still has an enormous degree of loyalty by handlers and users generally to existing vehicles. Moreover, conditions for trucks are generally much more demanding in Brttain


than in Ireland. On the whole, our distances are longer and, on average, trucks are subject to much more intensive use. Therefore, it does not follow that trucks suitable for Ireland will necessarily sell well in England.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not know whether my hon. Friend took on board the fact that I have reason to believe that these trucks will be marketed at about £3,000 less than a comparable British truck. My experience is that anyone faced with such a price difference has astonishingly little loyalty to British manufactured goods.

Mr. Meacher: Indeed, I noted my hon. Friend's reference to that figure. I was going to return to it when I came to the question of anti-dumping. It may be that if such a price differential were to materialise, it would be for a truck which was less durable and less suited to conditions in England than in Ireland. To that extent, it might be seen not to perform so well, and that might affect its marketability. I do not know. It does not necessarily follow that a truck that is suitable in Ireland will sell well in England. We believe that Hino may well be conscious of that point.
There is also the question of tax relief. Statements have been made about the claims of Irish subsidies on exports. The scheme of tax relief on export profits provides relief of 100 per cent. from income tax and corporation tax on profits attributable to export trade in Irish manufactured goods up to April 1990. Total relief is given for a maximum of 15 consecutive years and partial relief is given for a following period not exceeding five years.
The Irish Government's scheme of tax relief for export profits has been allowed by the EEC to continue in the light of protocol 30 to the treaty concerning the accession of Ireland to the Community. That recognises, inter alia, the need to take account, in the application of articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty of Rome dealing with State aid, of the objectives of Irish economic expansion and the raising of the standard of living of the population of Ireland.
The Commission is currently reviewing the incentives available in Ireland as well

as in the United Kingdom. I am aware that there was a report this week in The Economist on pages 77 and 78, that the EEC Commission had agreed to the Irish tax relief scheme lasting until 1990. That is incorrect. Our latest information is that the Commission is still reviewing the scheme and has not announced a decision on it.
My hon. Friend referred to the very large price differential, particularly in regard to dumping. I think that she is wrong to disregard the potential of the anti-dumping provisions under EEC powers now that those powers have passed to the Commission. The criteria that regulate anti-dumping are almost identical to those which existed under our own legislation. We retain an antidumping unit in the Department of Trade to advise and assist industry in the making of applications, and we would certainly press the Commission for early and speedy action if evidence were available. I do not know whether the £3,000 indicates the likelihood of dumping, but, if so, I hope that my hon. Friend will encourage her friends in the industry to bring forward the evidence.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I spent some time in the Department in which my hon. Friend has the honour to serve, and one of my jobs was directly connected with dumping. Even if the facts of the matter are crystal clear and easily proved, it takes a considerable time to gather together all the evidence. Does my hon. Friend not accept that it is virtually impossible to get the economic data on which dumping by Japan can be proved?

Mr. Meacher: It does take time, but some anti-dumping cases have been carried through quite quickly. Others have taken longer, but a number of cases have been successfully completed by ourselves, when we had the powers, and by the EEC, which has imposed dumping margins on Japanese goods, including printing machines. It is possible to collect the evidence or, on the basis of an investigation, to obtain a satisfactory price undertaking, which has a similar effect. This is not a route which should be ignored and, in view of the urgency of the case, if there were to be an upsurge of imports from Ireland of largely Japanese goods, we would press the Commission extremely hard.
I agree with my hon. Friend that Japanese imports could have severe consequences for our industry, but the threat from Japan of direct sales is not a live issue thanks to the current understanding between the two industries and the administrative guidance given by MITI in Japan. Indirect exports from an EEC base would be extremely unwelcome and would make nonsense of the current restraint being shown by Japanese manufacturers. However, there is at present no evidence that a substantial threat is likely to materialise from this quarter, at least in the near future.
I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said about the extreme seriousness of the situation, the way it is regarded by the industry, the action mooted by engineering workers in her constituency and the general concern which she feels, and which she has repeatedly voiced. I can assure her that we are watching the situation closely. I do not wish to sound complacent, but we cannot take action unless there is a significant increase in imports, and there is none at present. We take the problem extremely seriously. We shall continue to watch the situation closely and will take the action open to us if the threat materialises.

INLAND WATERWAYS

4.18 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could be forgiven if you heaved a sigh of relief when the Scotland Bill had its Royal Assent because you thought that you had heard the last of it.
In raising the question of the potential break-up of the British Waterways Board, I have to say that the subject was never discussed in the 46 days that the Scotland Bill spent going through this House. In a truncated speech, I shall save a lot of time if I say that a number of matters were raised during our discussion of the Transport Bill on Monday. They can be found in columns 126 to 130 of Hansard for that day.
In my own defence, I should say that although it was pointed out tartly in a Sunday newspaper that I had spent longer on the Scotland Bill than Churchill did on

the India Act, this subject was not discussed. It is a matter of great concern that the Board should in future be getting finance not from one body but from three, and that its expertise should be dissipated. What is happening is a retrograde step.
I quote from the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council:
IWAAC has always held the view that there would be no advantage to the users if inland waterways were to be devolved; in fact they believe it would almost certainly result in additional administrative costs and thus reduce the available finance for actual maintenance. They feel in this instance that the British Waterways Board's objections to devolution as set out in their Memorandum of January 1977 are fully justified.
That was a memorandum of which I reminded my right hon. Friend the Minister of State as soon as I knew that this debate on the Consolidated Fund would be taking place.
The Council continues:
The administrative problems posed for the Board, in order to maintain the waterways under the 1968 Transport Act, would be particularly acute in Wales where canals are linked to England and indeed, cross in and out of the national frontier.
In the case of the Scotland Bill, the situation could be further complicated by the Assembly's power to seek to alter the statutory duties to maintain the waterways.
Our enclosed press release states the Council's considered view which has in no way changed. As you will see in the last paragraph, the Council emphasise that in their view devolution of inland waterways could not be of any benefit, hut if the Government feel for political reasons they must press for inland waterways to be devolved, then a safeguard such as that achieved by moving British Waterways Board waterways in the Scotland Bill from Part I to Part 11 of Schedule 13, and in the Wales Bill from Part I to Part II of Schedule 7, must be included as the Government accepted following discussions with the Council.
The council goes on:
However, in our discussions no assurances could be given that additional funds would be available immediately for the Board to cope with any major emergency should one occur in Scotland or Wales, and we share concern at any possibly hazardous delay which might endanger the public.
The degree of concern the Government feels for canals in Scotland could best be demonstrated by the appointment of a Scottish Member to the British Waterways Board, as IWAAC and the Board have been urging the Government to do for some time.
The IWAAC sticks to its considered view that
the overwhelming belief held by the Scottish interests that Scotland's waterways should not


be separated from the existing financial arrangements for the British Waterways Board
should be maintained.
That is the opinion of the IWAAC. Let us go on to another informed body, the Seagull Trust, which is concerned with barges for the handicapped in Scotland. The Reverend Hugh Mackay says:
In a rational world a responsible Government would be impressed by the fact that the Lords and the Select Committee of the Commons have come to the same conclusions on the desirable future of BWB, and would accordingly exclude inland waterways from the provisions of the Bill, and if the situation was anything like that I would advise IWAAC to go all out for total exclusion and the preservation of BWB as a United Kingdom body and a United Kingdom responsibility.
Now I come to some additional information to that which I gave yesterday in the debate on the Transport Bill. It is from the BWB itself. Paragraph 4 of the Board's memorandum states that:
At present the Board receives a grant which, together with revenue earned, meets the annual expenditure on all the Board's waterways. The Chief Engineer allocates money in his budgets according to the need for public safety, engineering maintenance or whatever, advised by engineering staff in different parts of the country. Therefore, if a known requirement should arise in Scotland the tilting of the engineering budgets towards Scotland can take place. Indeed, in recent years the Board have made a particular effort to improve the lock gates on the Caledonian Canal. Given that the Board had to obtain money from the Scottish Assembly for Scottish Canals, the opportunity to allocate money from south of the border would not be available.
Paragraph 7 of the memorandum, which I quoted yesterday, states:
The Board would welcome the appointment of Members representing the Scottish and Welsh interests. This matter is of course for the Secretary of State for the Environment. No approach has been made so far as Scotland is concerned…Lady White and Mr. Harrington happen to be Welsh but that is not the reason for their appointment.
Paragraph 5 of the memorandum states:
The main statutory responsibilities of the Board are contained in the 1962 and 1968 Transport Acts. The 1968 Act divides the canals in Scotland into two categories—the Caledonian and Crinan are Commercial Waterways, the lowland canals are Remainder Waterways. The Scottish Assembly, as a legislative body, could be in a position to amend the provisions of the 1968 Act. Most probably in a way which will save money i.e. the downgrading in category of the Caledonian and

Crinan. As the Board understands it, the Assembly will be able to do this without reference to Westminster.
There is one professionally experienced engineer in Scotland, based in Glasgow. He can at present call for support from his colleagues in the other engineering disciplines, namely, water, mechanical, electrical, and construction engineering, although he is a civil engineer. He can also call for professional advice from other departments of the Board, excluding legal advice. Its arrangements, therefore, provide the most economic way of handling the 130 miles of canal in Scotland. However, in the Board's view the canals in Scotland could not operate without duplicating all of the services presently provided by it. This would be expensive and the number of people with the professionally skilled knowledge to deal with canal problems is small. The board has most such people in its organisation.
Paragraph 11 is concerned with the Llangollen canal, which starts in Wales, flows south-cast into England, and returns north-east into Wales before finally returning to England. The reservoir in Wales is used to feed water for navigation and to supply the North West Water Authority, which has extensive storage facilities at Hurleston, in Cheshire. The precise position for covering the maintenance and control of this waterway under the Wales Act is not clear, but the Board expects that should any such order he devised by the Welsh Assembly the complexity of this waterway will be recognised and a rational solution found.
That is the BWB's concern about the situation. In the other place those who know about these things discussed them in the debate on 9th May. The Countess of Loudoun said:
These waterways, or at least most of them, have been managed successfully by the British Waterways Board since January 1963 as a unified system, and the need for a national plan was acknowledged when the Water Act 1973 became law, and reaffirmed in paragraph 27 of the Green Paper about the future of the water industry. I can find no evidence of any great public pressure for inland waterways to be devolved.
Lord Harvington said:
This system should remain part of the general system, with the know-how of the British Waterways Board being put at the disposal of all the canals throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom.


Viscount St. Davids pointed out:
They have suffered under previous Governments, but they have almost suffered more under this Government. Until recently it was suggesed that British waterways should be cut into nine pieces under the regional water authorities. We had a lot of argument on that and the points were put clearly to the Government that the Board would not work well in nine pieces and the Government were persuaded—very rationally—that it really worked best as one organisation.
Viscount Hanworth pointed out:
by far the wiser course would be to divide tonight and eliminate this matter from the Bill. The only possible reason for including it is that it is a pawn in the political game of devolution.
Lady Elliot of Harwood said:
it is not practicable to devolve ministerial responsibility for the larger matter of inland waterways and competence to legislate on the subject but, at the same time, to reserve all powers relating to the British Waterways Board."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9th May 1978; Vol. 391, c. 904–11.]
These people have experience in the industry.
I intend to be brief tonight. I have taken a great deal of time in this Parliament on the Scotland Bill.
I ask the final question: what is the purpose of breaking up the British Waterways Board, other than giving this Assembly something to do? This seems to be a political and not a technical decision. I do not want to use any handle to beat the Scotland Act, but that is a fair question which has not been discussed in this House. Why are we perpetrating the folly of breaking up the waterways board that has served canals and canal users well in the past?

4.33 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has a long-standing interest in British waterways, and there is no doubt that he has been long standing, too, on the Scotland and Wales Bills. He is genuinely concerned about the effect that devolution may have for the British Waterways Board and its work.
Before I explain why the Government wish to devolve inland waterways when the British Waterways Board is so opposed to the idea it would be as well if I clarified what devolution will and will not do for the waterways system.
My hon. Friend quoted a memorandum of January 1977. The Board says that that still represents its view. There have, however, been alterations in the proposals since they were published. We reviewed the relevant proposals in the Scotland and Wales Bills and the Government amended them so that devolution of powers related to the BWB will not take place until the Scottish Executive or the Welsh Assembly specifically request it. We do not believe that the Scottish Assembly would take such action if it felt that it would cost the people of Scotland a great deal more to maintain their canals.
We further amended these proposals to provide that the devolution of the British Waterways Board after a referendum of the Scottish and Welsh peoples, and after a Scottish Assembly or a Welsh Assembly had made the request, should still be dependent on an affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament. I have no doubt that, should either of the Assemblies decide to make that request, the voice of my hon. Friend will be heard again in this House on the subject of whether that request should be granted, and this House will make the final decision on that.
The devolved Administrations will be able, if they wish, after consultation with the BWB, to seek the devolution of inland waterways and BWB. Should such a request be agreed by both Houses, the devolved Administrations could, if the relevant orders contain the necessary provisions, assume the powers to determine the policy for their canals and be responsible for their financing. The Scottish Assembly, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, would also have power, if it wished, to legislate to alter the arrangements for inland waterways in Scotland.
The Government's reasons for devolving inland waterways are that they can be dealt with suitably and conveniently in the context of water supply, recreation and the environment, as they are at the moment in the United Kingdom. Those responsibilities, too, are to be devolved. I appreciate that the Caledonian canal is a commercial canal. This was realised when the Langan locks problem was discussed and we made an additional grant for those locks. It was appreciated that the Caledonian canal has an important commercial factor, and that it is important for transferring smaller fishing


boats from the North Sea to the Irish Sea and the Atlantic. Nevertheless, the bulk of the work in Scotland, as in England, remains with the Department of the Environment here, and the related work of recreation, water supply, and so on, remains with the Department.
The Government consider that the Scottish and the Welsh people ought to have the right to decide for themselves how their canals should be administered and financed. There are no physical links beween the waterway systems of England and Scotland, and few—my hon. Friend mentioned one—between England and Wales.
My hon. Friend argued that devolution will create difficulties for the British Waterways Board and will lead to its fragmentation, but I do not think that it would make sense for ministerial responsibility for the larger matter of inland waterways and the competence to legislate on the subject to be devolved while at the same time all powers relating to the Board were reserved. We took the view that arrangements for the Board should be related to those for inland waterways generally, and that these must be decided in the context of the Government's devolution policy as a whole.
Devolution will not necessarily cause the fragmentation of the Board; all it will do will be to provide that at the request of the devolved Administrations, and with the consent of this House, the Secretary of State may make an order giving them certain powers. But that could not mean dividing up the Board or its staff into separate units. All it would mean is that the Board would account separately to the Administrations for its operations in Scotland and Wales.
As to wastage of expert staff, I agree that the number of BWB staff in Wales and Scotland is only a small proportion of its total staff, but it is incomprehensible that the devolved Administrations and this House would contemplate changes that might affect these workers before discussing such changes fully both with the Board and with the unions concerned.
The House considered the functions of the BWB and inland waterways generally for several hours last night, so I do not intend to discuss its functions at length. But should the referendum decide to go for an Assembly, and should the Assem-

blies in both countries, and the Scottish Executive, decide to make the request, the matter will again be debated here.

ADVISORY, CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION SERVICE

4.40 a.m.

Mr. Tony Durant: I should like to mention the workings of ACAS and the claim put to it by the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers for representation on the National Water Council. I do so on behalf of the president of UKAPE, who is a constituent of mine. There are also 10 water engineers in my constituency, and the Thames Conservancy and the Thames Water Authority are active in my area, and I am involved with both.
Before the water reorganisation in 1973–74, UKAPE was part of the negotiating machinery in nine water authorities, including the Thames Conservancy. It was represented in a consultative capacity on the Water Staff Commission, which considered reorganisation.
When the new water authorities were set up, UKAPE clearly understood that it would be involved in the future negotiating machinery. It had letters to that effect, including one from the National Water Council, dated 8th February 1974, which said that
it was agreed by both sides that this distribution would reflect membership strengths of the respective staff organisations".
That would apply to a union which is fairly big, having 1,000 members in the industry.
In another letter, from the secretary of the NWC, dated 14th February, the secretary of the NWC said that
although you and your colleagues received assurances during your meeting here with Lord Nugent and the Director General on 21st December that you would in future be brought into the consultations on the establishment of negotiating machinery for the new water service,
there was some doubt about that. But it was clearly implied in discussions that the union would be part of the machinery.
ACAS was then set up, and UKAPE took its case to that body. The union applied in 1976 and it took two years to reach a decision. ACAS soon decided that conciliation would not work and began an investigation. After two


years, the report came out. I have a copy here. It contains some things that UKAPE contends are not right.
On page 6 of the report—no. 128, Employment Protection Act 1975, section 12—we read:
UKAPE contends that

I. as the NWC set up new machinery it must have considered the existing machinery inadequate. The NWC had discussions with UKAPE about the new machinery, so it must have regarded UKAPE as an appropriate organisation' under S.26(2) of the Water Act 1973;
II. membership of the negotiating bodies ought to be directly related to levels of membership of the trade unions. At present this is not the case. With a substantial membership in the industry when the national negotiating machinery was set up in 1974, UKAPE ought to have been accorded a place in the machinery at that time;
III. professional people need specialised representation, pointing to the Professional Officers' Committee as an indication that this has been recognised in the water industry and
IV. the two engineers' unions currently holding POC seats are not representative because they do not have sufficient membership amongst staff covered by the National Joint Council to justify their monopoly of these seats.

It is particularly one of UKAPE's grievances that the professional engineers, who are part of the negotiating machinery have a very small membership compared with that of UKAPE.
On page 7, the report said that NALGO, which had opposed UKAPE's involvement, made the following points:

"(i) that UKAPE recruited members in an area where trade unions were already established,
(ii) that an overwhelming proportion of 'professional engineers' in the industry are already in membership of the currently recognised unions,
(iii) that there are already too many unions in the industry and that any tendency towards further proliferation would be undesirable, and
(iv) that the present system of representation in the water industry was set up very recently (in 1974) and should not be subject to revision at such an early stage."

Then came the part that worries me:
NALGO has indicated that, should UKAPE be recognised, it would withdraw from the present negotiating arrangements (effectively making them unworkable).

That is a direct and serious threat.
NALGO takes a positive view. In a 1978 report about non-TUC affiliated unions, it says that
Continuing efforts should, however, be made by NALGO and the other TUC unions concerned to ensure that the role of the non-TUC affiliated unions
—which include UKAPE—
is diminished and a situation reached in which the other bodies are removed from the negotiating scene.
In other words, in my opinion, pressure from NALGO has forced ACAS to come to that decision.
ACAS did a ballot among the members. It first decided to ballot only the professional engineers. Then, under pressure from NALGO, it decided to ballot all the members of the water authorities by questionnaire, and the members of their staff. The resulting figures come out against UKAPE, because it obviously has a much smaller proportion of those people.
On page 10 of report no. 128 we read, of the ballot:
The responses to the question 'Do you consider that UKAPE should have a place in the existing negotiating arrangements covering NJC staff' were Yes'…33 per cent. 'No'…55 per cent.
That sounds fairly decisive, but only 52 per cent. of all those who were sent a questionnaire responded, and 55 per cent. of 52 per cent. leaves only 28 per cent. of the total membership were against. Most were not all that concerned. They were not even involved. It did not matter to them. NALGO was already at the negotiating table. It did not worry them whether UKAPE was in or not. It was a bad way of going about the ACAS business.
The final question was:
Do you consider that UKAPE should have a place in the existing negotiating arrangements covering NJC staff?
That was put to the engineers alone, who naturally came out 73 per cent. in favour compared with 24 per cent. against.
The other grievance that the UKAPE members had was that in the negotiating arrangements there were two small unions representing the engineers which had a very small membership—only some 80 and some 120 respectively, members who were part of the professional staff negotiating sub-committee. It seems to


UKAPE entirely wrong that it is right outside while at the negotiating table inside there is a small union which has a very friendly relationship with NALGO. It feels that its voice is therefore not being heard properly in the whole matter of negotiations in the water industry.
I urge the Minister to have a look at the whole question of union recognition and ACAS. I am not particularly anti-ACAS as such, though some of my colleagues seem to be. What I am concerned about is that when ACAS becomes involved in union recognition that is very often when it goes wrong.
In yesterday's edition of The Guardian—I did not know; I had already decided to raise the subject—there was a leader on the matter headed
The right and wrong ways to change ACAS".
It gives alternative ways of having other machinery to deal with union recognition, one of the most difficult problems between two different unions round the negotiating table. ACAS has found this difficult to adjudicate on, under the terms of the Acts as laid down by this Government. The Government should consider a different method of deciding on the subject, separate from the other work that ACAS does very competently. My criticism of ACAS is mainly about union recognition. The courts or tribunals may have to come back into this. The EMA has suggested another system of its own, which is mentioned in The Guardian leader.
Because of the lowering of differentials and the fact that they have felt squeezed, skilled workers are increasingly trying to flex their muscles, to get more involved together and have a better representation in negotiating machinery. The whole of this dispute reflects an element of that. The Governments must take account of it. Therefore, I ask that the Minister looks at this question of principle whether ACAS is the right way to deal with the whole question of union recognition.
We have now had the High Court judgment on the Allen case. I do not want to bring that case into my argument, except to say that in his decision about interpreting the Act as laid down the judge said that Parliament had made a second point in the terms of reference of ACAS, that it was not only to be a

conciliatory body in order to make better industrial relations but that it was to improve the negotiating machinery. That was one of the reasons why he went against the ACAS judgment on Allen.
This has a reflection on my case. The Minister might well look at the High Court judgment in relation to the earlier judgment on the Allen case. There is an element there which could be transmitted to the case that I am raising. I ask the Minister to have a look at this again in the light of what Mr. Justice May said, on, I think 30th June. I am quoting from the Financial Times of 1st July, but no doubt the judgment was the day before.
I ask the Minister to look at this case again, to look at the decision that ACAS made, bearing in mind the court's judgment, and also to look, from the Government's point of view, at the question whether ACAS should now be pulled out of the area of union recognition. I do not mean by that recognition of a union being set up within a company, but inter-union argument as to who should be at the negotiating table. This seems to be where ACAS falls down on the job. It is a difficult matter for it to adjudicate upon.
I put those two points to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I ask him to look again at the water engineers' case in the light of the judgment in the High Court. Secondly, I ask that he should look at the role of ACAS in this difficult task of adjudicating between various trade unions around the negotiating table.

4.56 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I hope that the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) will let me apologise immediately for the fact that I was not present when he began to address the House. He and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand that, as is often the case on these occasions, it can be difficult to anticipate the time at which a debate will start.
Let me tell the hon. Member of my other difficulty. I obviously could not anticipate the issue that he raised, although he had given some indication of it to my office. He will appreciate that not only is there the difficulty of trying to anticipate what he might say; there are also inhibitions which face a Minister on


such an occasion as this. The Employment Protection Act, in establishing ACAS, established its independence in such a far-reaching way that it is difficult for me to comment either on its functions or on the reports which the Service makes.
Sometimes that independence is not sufficiently understood. Perhaps I ought to refer to schedule 1 (11) of the Employment Protection Act. It says:
The functions of the Service
—that is, ACAS—
and of its officers and servants shall be performed on behalf of the Crown, but, subject to paragraph 35 below
—that refers to the obligations of my Department to provide the pay and rations of the staff of the service—
The Service shall not be subject to directions of any kind from any Minister of the Crown as to the manner in which it is to exercise any of its functions under any enactment.
That puts beyond any doubt, first the independence of the service and, secondly, the limit to which I can comment on any of the reports of the Service, in this case report no. 128, to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention, dealing with the application by the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers for recognition in the water service. I have that inhibition in responding.
Having said that it is not appropriate for me to express an opinion on this report, I shall comment on the issue, in so far as I can, in a way that will help to put the matter into perspective. There is no denying that representation of professional engineers is a difficult and controversial area. I think that the professional engineers, like many other white-collar groups, are now waking up to the benefits of trade union membership and of collective bargaining. Consequently, there is competition among a variety of unions which seek to represent these white collar and professional groups.
A number of recognition references involving professional engineers have been submitted to ACAS. The particular difficulties that confront ACAS in dealing with such references should not be underestimated. ACAS is required in each case to take account of the views of the workers concerned and of any organisation with an interest. Furthermore, ACAS has a general duty, under the statute, to

seek both to improve industrial relations and to promote the extension of collective bargaining.
The terms of reference of ACAS have been a matter of controversy for a substantial period. Difficult industrial relations judgments are therefore required of ACAS, particularly where, as in this case, there is disagreement among the unions involved, or if, in the view of ACAS, the interests of good industrial relations run counter to the views of the majority of the workers covered by a reference.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the W. H. Allen-UKAPE case. I do not think that he would want to tempt me to go too deeply into it now, but it is an example of where the question of good relations is in conflict with the obligation of the Service, under its terms of reference, to extend collective bargaining. It is certainly an example of the kind of difficulty with which ACAS finds itself confronted. But, of course, such difficulties are what ACAS was set up to respond to.
The water industry reference is perhaps in some ways rather different from some of the other references, particularly the Allen case, in terms of the recognition of professional engineers, in that, as is usual in the public sector, there is already a well-developed system of collective bargaining covering the employees. A number of unions are already recognised and are parties to the arrangements within the industry.
Indeed, most of the engineers covered by the reference submitted by UKAPE were already members of the National Association of Local Government Officers. The Council of Engineering Institutions, at the end of 1975, in a report entitled "Professional Engineers and Trade Unions", noted that NALGO already had about 10 per cent. of professional engineers in membership—more than any other union catering for professional engineers. It took the view that such closed unions in the public sector had long provided good service, and, by and large, adequately covered the interests of professional engineers.
It is widely recognised that the United Kingdom has too many trade unions. As I have said before, if there is one weakness of our industrial relations system on which there is common ground on both sides of the House, it is that we have


too many trade unions, and not too few. I do not mean by that that we have too many trade unionists. While I believe that perhaps we have too many trade unions, I believe also that we have too few trade unionists. It would be to the benefit of industrial relations if we were able to diminish the number of trade unions, and certainly if we were to seek to avoid a further proliferation—a further recognition that would lead to a multiplicity of trade unions. Rationalisation of the trade union movement, as of other areas of our commercial and industrial life, can be a difficult and painful process.

Mr. Durant: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the number of unions, but one of the grievances of UKAPE in this case is that there are three small professional unions in the negotiating body, and it would be only one. I take the general case, but in this instance UKAPE would be assisting in the Minister's general thesis.

Mr. Walker: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I must resist the temptation to comment too far on it, for the reasons that I gave at the start of this debate. I must avoid expressing a judgment on ACAS because of the independence that Parliament has given to it. No doubt ACAS and its officials will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman and I have said in this debate and will take it into account in their approach to this and similar matters.
One unsatisfactory feature has been revealed by the ACAS inquiries into this and other cases. It is that there is dissatisfaction amongst engineers about the way in which they are represented at present. I hope that in the circumstances NALGO will take to heart and act upon the recommendations of ACAS and will consider what steps need to be taken to ensure that the interests of members who are professional engineers in the water industry are adequately represented.
The hon. Gentleman made some more general observations about the role of ACAS in recognition references. Parliament has laid down a statutory procedure by means of which we can resolve the legitimate claims of trade unions which are seeking recognition by employers. It is a procedure by means of which we might avoid the conflicts that have dis-

figured industrial relations previously and which, even during the currency of the Act, as in the infamous Grunwick case, have led to confrontation instead of a settlement by specific methods.
During the currency of the Act, whilst it would be wrong to draw conclusions from particular hard cases, such as Grunwick, and when, in spite of that case, a large number of recognition references have been dealt with and resolved in a useful, constructive and peaceful way, none the less the experience of the last two years or so has shown that we might find it necessary in the future to look carefully and critically at the question whether the provisions that we have laid down by statute need to be reviewed and changed. If they do, we shall take into account the comments made by the hon. Gentleman and others in deciding what kind of changes should be made.

TRADE RESTRICTIONS

5.8 a.m.

Miss Betty Boothroyd: I wish to raise with the Minister the question of non-tariff barriers to exports, and I do so under Clause IV, Vote 9, for which his Department has responsibility. I raise the matter perhaps in a somewhat parochial fashion because I represent a part of the West Midlands which is often known as the workshop or the power house of British industry, and in times of recession the country tends to look to that region to generate steam which pulls us out of the mire. It is a tall order, but I know that those people working in the foundries and factories of the Black Country can produce the goods, and what I seek to ensure is that what they manufacture is sold abroad and their products are not met with unfair trading barriers, and that by fair trading their jobs are preserved and industrial activity is stimulated.
What I have to say in the dawn hours of this morning is designed to examine a rather narrow though profoundly important aspect of trade—that relating to trade in electric lamps and lighting equipment. The other side of the coin concerns the brass foundry industry, dealing with taps, stopcocks, valves, joints, sink taps and mixers, all of which I shall refer to as water fittings.
Although they have a national dimension, both these sectors of manufacture have a firm base in the West Midlands. They produce first-class equipment. Both experience difficulties in their export trade, which seem to stem largely from the non-acceptability of standards, marking schemes and certifications which relate to standards. For instance, with water fittings problems seem to arise because there is no uniformity whatever in the test requirements specified by the test houses of various countries.
Each test house has its own set of requirements which has been developed over the years. Even if we were to take what one might describe as the "major" countries, special individual requirements exist which do not seem to obtain elsewhere. The French demand detailed standards involving both dimensional and endurance test requirements. In fact, the latest innovation of the German test house is an acoustic one, which requires a maximum noise level. Apparently, so far as I can make out, it has become mandatory. In spite of Germany's being a member of the Community, this seems to have been introduced unilaterally. It is undoubtedly a barrier to trade. Perhaps my hon. Friend can indicate what consultations, if any, took place before its introduction and what consultations are now taking place relating to acoustic requirements.
Sweden is not a member of the Community, but it makes its own special demands which impose a requirement for what is called "dezincification resistance". It means that products have to be made of materials which pass the special test. Although the test is not considered to be particularly comprehensive by many authorities, including the British Non-Ferrous Metals Technology Centre, it is a mandatory requirement. Perhaps the Minister can indicate how it was possible to introduce such a technical barrier without multilateral agreement.
The Netherlands operates a most detailed specification for water and pipe fittings. In fact, the Dutch allow a flow of only 2,000 litres an hour, whereas most taps give a flow of 6,000 litres an hour. But the Dutch have the most fantastic set of demands and dimensions, which are far too numerous and complex to mention. In addition, plumbers in Holland

are required to be registered. Additional restrictions are also imposed, because the Dutch will fit only products which have the accolade of their own country's test houses. In fact, the Dutch are not on their own in this. Other countries require registration for the very same reason, while in others water authorities will not connect the supply of fittings which do not carry the approval of their own national test houses.
In contrast, the Institute of Plumbers in this country has sought to secure registration, but without success. There can be no doubt that the present arrangements are working to the disadvantage of United Kingdom manufacturers, because of the nitty-gritty demands of minute measurements, performance requirements, pressure resistance and flow characteristics. It is these requirements which are proving to be barriers to trade. Because of them, the number of acceptances of British fittings by overseas test houses has been small. Therefore, our trade and employment levels suffer.
I now turn to the other side of the coin, that which concerns imports and the very easy access they have to the United Kingdom market. My hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that foreign manufacturers do not have to submit their products to the National Water Council for approval. This may well be because the Council does not require performance or quality standards. In fact, it requires very little. It bases its requirements on the 1973 Water Act, which simply asks that fittings comply with regulations and byelaws, that they do not waste water, that they prevent the misuse of water and that they do not contaminate water. It is a very simple requirement indeed, and nothing else is demanded.
Other factors such as I have outlined and which other countries demand are not considered. Matters relating to consumer satisfaction are not part of the approval test. Therefore, it is easy for imports to be given an accolade, even though they may not perform satisfactorily. What appears to be needed is a greater degree of harmony in international testing requirements. I shall be glad to hear of any consultations that are taking place or any plans my hon. Friend may have, particularly within the Community, to


recommend the harmonisation of testing requirements. This should be on a mandatory basis.
A couple of years ago the industry pressed for more detailed information on import penetration, but little information is available of the actual volume of imports because of the generalised product coding. However, new statistical descriptions have been in operation from the beginning of this year, I believe, and this might provide us with evidence to enable us to mount a disclosure of import information exercise. It is a mammoth task and the industry has to produce a very strong case before the exercise is given the go-ahead. I hope that the Minister will use his very best endeavours to ensure that unnecessary procedures and consultations do not stand in the way of an exercise which, even if it is authorised, will involve many months of investigation before it produces results.
In contrast to this, the electric lighting industry knows the degree of lamp imports into the United Kingdom. I am now talking about what is known as the popular types—in general, those used for automobiles and lighting service tungsten lamps. In 1972, lamp imports represented 13 per cent. of the total British market. That figure has increased by more than 100 per cent. in just over five years. For the 12 months to May of this year, imports represented 29 per cent. of the total United Kingdom market. For automobile lamps, in 1972 imports comprised about 13 per cent. of the market, whereas they have now captured a large slice and represent 43 per cent. of the total British market. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that by any standards this represents a very stunning penetration.
It is worth making the point that imports comprise a limited range of lamps of popular standard type. The development costs of this type of lamp are not as high as with the more technically advanced luminaire, yet the British industry has to meet the demands for the more sophisticated luminaires for key industries, for hospitals, for television optical uses, and so on. The high development cost of the more sophisticated product is to a very considerable extent balanced by the financial turnover of the standard type of lamp. So, while it is the less costly end of the market that is

being eroded by imports, it also threatens the survival of the technically advanced sector.
The employment picture is dreary, too. This has been affected by increased imports, and in recent years over 2,500 people have lost their jobs. This can be seen from the high penetration of automobile lamps, which has had a profound effect on employment in this sector alone, where there has been a drastic reduction in the labour force of 25 per cent.
There are technical barriers as numerous as the famous "57 varieties". Again, independent certification of the product is required by various countries, which have individual requirements. Although in some cases certification is not mandatory, it has developed traditionally and has become part of the procedure required for exports from the United Kingdom. In the United States major purchasers and Government departments will buy only equipment that has been approved by their own independent authority. Germany insists on a standard mark known as VDE and, although it is not mandatory, it has become a necessity and British products exported to Germany and other countries in Europe, notably in Scandinavia, must first obtain this mark. Perhaps my hon. Friend will indicate how it has been possible for the VDE mark to gain such enormous strength throughout Western Europe.
In France a good deal of Government finance is provided for its industries and public services, but that money is not forthcoming unless equipment is certified by the French independent standards authority. So the tale goes on. It ranges over many countries where British exports face restrictions and conditions. However, imported lamps into Britain have no restrictions placed on them and there are no requirements for lamps to conform to any quality standard.
That open situation means that electric lamps are being brought into the United Kingdom in increasing quantities. An export exercise has provided sufficient information for a case to be presented to the European Commission's dumping committee. The evidence suggests a threat to jobs because of the large penetration of cheap imports from Eastern Europe, especially Poland and Hungary. I hope that my hon. Friend will comment


on the negotiations or will inform us when a decision may be expected.
There exist a number of bilateral and multilateral schemes of varying degrees of formality and status that involve the acceptance of standards, but there is no statutory agreement in operation between countries. Obligations exist, but these are not binding. It is essential that attention be given to this area of market inequality if we are to continue with viable industries.
As for luminaires, the immediate need is to obtain a wider acceptance of the authority of the British Standards Institution and its marking.
Finally, in the two sectors that I have mentioned there is a great need for the harmonisation of standards and testing requirements both within the EEC and internationally. What is more, I suggest that standard markings and testing requirements should not be left to the whims and fancies of voluntary acceptance but should be made mandatory. Harmonisation is often spoken of jokingly and regarded with cynical amusement. There is nothing amusing about a lack of harmonisation that reduces Britain's industrial activity and puts men and women out of work.
I hope that my hon. Friend will consider these maters seriously and that his response will be not only illuminating but constructive and offering some hope.

5.23 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Michael Meacher): My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) raised a serious and important issue regarding the harmonisation of standards and testing requirements as a means of eliminating barriers to trade that can act against the interests of the United Kingdom. I am grateful to her for raising the issue.
There is a constituency interest, as my hon. Friend has in her constituency a company that is a maker of water fittings. I am aware that one of its plants in an adjacent constituency has recently closed. That indicates the relevance of the points that she has been making. I appreciate her anxiety that one of the reasons for the closure—cheap imports—should not force any other closures in the group or within the industry.
My hon. Friend raised two central industrial issues concerning water fittings and electric lamps. Her arguments apply in other areas. There are two main probblems facing the water fittings industry, both of which were brought out when my hon. Friend met the Under-Secretary of State for Industry as part of a delegation concerned with the plant closure.
The problem of cheap imports is closely tied up with the second main problem, that of non-tariff barriers. Until now this relatively small sector of the industry has not had adequate statistical information to assess import penetration and the overall trade balance. However, as my hon. Friend said, from 1st January there has been a separate tariff heading to cover bath and sink taps and mixers. I hope that that will be of help to the industry in assessing the extent of the problems that are facing it. We do not have sales figures for later than 1977 for the last six months of which the figures show sales of bath and basin taps and mixers of about £15·3 million. Imports for the first five months of 1978 were about £1·7 million and exports over the same period were £.1·2 million. However, we cannot yet produce a figure for import penetration.
I understand that officials of the Department of Industry have been in touch with the trade association to advise it on how to use the provisions in the Finance Act 1967—I refer to the section 3 procedure—to seek more information on the origin and type of imports. We know that Italy accounted for about 48 per cent. of this year's imports, that Germany provided 26 per cent., Portugal 8 per cent., and France 6 per cent. I believe that a secure basis of fact is essential to an understanding of this kind of situation, and we now have the prospect of more reliable and relevant information on this matter.
I turn to the main question of non-tariff barriers. This is a product area where, as in many other cases, potential exporters face different technical standards for their products and in many countries use of these is mandatory. That is a relatively uncommon situation in the United Kingdom. Standards in the United Kingdom are mandatory only for such things as seat belts, crash helmets and electric blankets, and they have implications for trade.
As for water fittings, the United Kingdom system is completely different from that of much of Europe. We have a low pressure water system in our houses fed from roof tanks. Only the kitchen tap can be on mains pressure. However, Europe has high pressure water systems. Therefore, from the very beginning potential exporters certainly face a major barrier in the United Kingdom.
Coming down to the detail of regulations in Germany and the United Kingdom, I understand that there is some similarity in what is required, acoustic tests apart. In both countries it is illegal to fit non-approved appliances to the water system, but in the United Kingdom it is not illegal to sell such non-approved appliances. Consumers in the United Kingdom seem to be less interested in the kind of appliances that are fitted. That may be a matter for regret, but it seems to be a fact.
A tap designed for a Continental high pressure system which produces a much lower flow rate than a United Kingdom tap is probably acceptable to the consumer, who probably has only to turn it on rather more. Thus, a different pressure system does not provide as effective a barrier to imports as it does to our exports. That was the point made by my hon. Friend.
As for the United Kingdom requirements, only fittings approved by the National Water Council may be installed. But the regulations, as they are at present, require only no contamination and no waste. They say nothing about performance or flow rate.
I understand that the manufacturers and the trade association are in touch with the National Water Council and the Department of the Environment about whether the requirements can be modified. That was the central question raised by my hon. Friend. We shall have to await the results of the discussions among the manufacturers, the trade association, the National Water Council and the Department of the Environment.
When it comes down to what member States, such as Germany, can do by way of introducing non-tariff barriers, it is worth spelling it out in detail. Basically, the Treaty of Rome prohibits the introduction of measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions. Fol-

lowing various cases in the European Court, the Commission will regard as prohibited all measures which could directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, harm intra-Community trade. Such measures would include laws, regulations, administrative practices and similar things done by or attributable to a public authority.
My hon. Friend mentioned the German requirement for acoustic noise levels in taps. This is one area in which noise levels are being specified for products. My hon. Friend asked what consultations had taken place before noise levels were introduced. I cannot answer that question now, but I shall try to find out the answer.
I understand that France also wants to see noise standards on equipment in the domestic environment generally, and work is being considered on the water requirements of domestic appliances. If, through the good offices of my hon. Friend, the industry can let us have more details of the German acoustic requirements, about which my Department is not well briefed, we shall certainly consider taking the matter up with the Germans and with the Commission.
My hon. Friend also mentioned dezincification, which is operated by the Swedes. As they are not members of the EEC, the Swedes are not subject to the same strict rules as are the Germans and hence they could introduce such a requirement without having the detailed consultations that would be required in the EEC. We are prepared to take up their technical requirements with them if there is evidence of their being applied in a discriminatory way against our exporters.
Our concern is for these different technical standards to be modified in order to improve our trade balance. My hon. Friend urged harmonisation so that our exporters were not penalised. We shall support any moves by the Department of the Environment to tighten up enforcement in this area.
I agree that the non-tariff barrier problems are similar in the electric lamp industry, although the pattern of trade is different. I accept what my hon. Friend said about the deteriorating import figures and the employment effects. Import penetration figures are high and have been growing. My hon. Friend referred


to the 13 per cent. import penetration of five years ago now having reached 29 per cent. I assume that she was referring to discharge lamps. There are other categories where import penetration has doubled. The import penetration rate in filament lamps increased from 7 per cent. in 1973 to 14 per cent. in 1977. The figures for vehicle bulbs are even more serious. There was an increase from 26 per cent. in 1973—a high figure even then—to 57½ per cent. in 1977. My hon. Friend's figures are not the most drastic.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the solution lies in technical harmonisation within Europe. She will know that there is already a substantial programme of harmonisation of standards and progress is being made all the time.
With the system of type approval for cars—the ECE system—new cars have to be fitted with ECE standard bulbs, but unfortunately there is no requirement for replacement bulbs to be of the same standard and import penetration is high in the replacement bulb market, with most imports coming from Hungary and other major sources including Hong Kong and Taiwan.
I gather that the industry has been pressing for it to be made a condition of the MOT test that bulbs should conform to the ECE standard, but the Department of Transport regards this as impractical. Like us, my hon. Friend may take this up directly with the Secretary of State for Transport, but bulbs from Hungary are of a high standard, contrary to what is sometimes said, and the effect of such a condition might not be as great as may be expected.
As for other categories of bulbs, the ordinary filament bulbs, the so-called GLS lamps, are the subject of an antidumping application by the European industry which is strongly supported by our industry through the Lighting Industry Federation. I understand that the Commission has asked member States to let it have their views on the application. An investigation is certainly something to which we shall give strong support.
It is interesting to note that the Eastern European bulbs that are the subject of an anti-dumping application have a much higher import penetration in other member States than in the United Kingdom,

where the figure is currently only about 1 per cent. of the market for GLS bulbs. It may therefore be that the effects of lack of technical harmonisation are not by any means confined to the United Kingdom and that other States also have an interest in achieving this harmonisation.
As I have said, my hon. Friend raised a very important issue which bears strongly on the trade potential of these two industries, which are important not only in the Midlands. The two cases that she raised are only two specific instances of a problem that is much more widespread. Its importance was recognised particularly in the Warner report on standards, which was recently completed. The recommendations in that report are being actively pursued by the Government.
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is particularly important to see that the importance of standards in exports is fully understood and that in our approach to international harmonisation we give priority to the balance of trading advantages. I think that my hon. Friend made a very detailed speech, which contained a great deal of evidence which we shall want to examine. I am certainly grateful for the evidence that she has collected. I give her the assurance that we shall certainly follow up her recommendations vigorously.

LEAD POLLUTION

5.37 a.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I wish to raise some of the issues behind the recent report of the Department of the Environment entitled "Lead Pollution in Birmingham."
In April 1974, just after I became a Member, I was fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate one Friday, when I was able to discuss briefly the problems of people living alongside the motorways in Birmingham—particularly the M6—and some of the potential health hazards that they were suffering because of the quantity of lead in petrol in those days. Since then, of course, the amount of lead in petrol has been reduced. It was around April 1974 that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State set up what was known as the Gravelly Hill working party to study the problem, specifically around


Spaghetti Junction and the environs of Birmingham.
The chapter of the report which gives cause for most concern and which has received most comment in the press is chapter 5, which relates basically to preschool children under the age of 5. It was found that there was—I put it no higher than this—a high level of lead in the blood of these children, as compared with other sections of the population. In some cases it was found to be twice as high as the level in adult males.
The report is a little sketchy, in that it admits that there was no correlation between this factor and the habit, well known to exist among young children, of chewing lead products, or a correlation between the occupation of the fathers, which can be important if the fathers work in heavy industry, particularly, perhaps, in a lead product factory such as a battery factory. Nor was there any correlation between the age of the house in which the children lived, which was at one time thought to be a particular factor with the incidence of high levels of blood lead.
The report seems to refuse to accept that the high level of blood lead may be from petrol. That gives cause for concern to the public, and it is one of the prime reasons for my taking the time of the House this morning. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to explain exactly the Department's view on the matter.
The committee that compiled the report was a little complacent in getting samples in respect of the pre-school children. It is astonishing to read in the report the response to the committee's target of 640 samples of children within the age range of 1 to 4 from the four different areas of Birmingham. The committee approached 1,600 parents. There was no response in 931 cases. Letters were returned in 270 cases for what the author of the report sees as the astonishing reasons of "change of address", "address unknown", "house empty" or "house demolished". That part of the report has an exclamation mark against it. There were only 46 outright refusals from parents to let their children participate in the survey. The committee received 353 permissions. That figure is some way short of the target of 640. It was well known that the response

was poor. The figures indicate an irresponsible attitude among the parents, given that such a large number failed to respond. That is most unhelpful in dealing with this major problem. There were reasons for the poor response, although they do not wholly mitigate the inaction of the parents.
Of the 353 parents who gave permission, only 243 kept the appointment with their children for the blood samples to be taken. The final number was made up to over 400 by parents volunteering after press publicity about the poor response.
One reason for that poor turnout is given in paragraph 90 of the report, which states that
There is no doubt that the fact that the blood samples were taken at Sutton Coldfield
—at Good Hope hospital—
was a factor in motivating parents to respond as they did".
The reference there is to the high reponse rate of Sutton Coldfield parents. It continues:
Had we been able to arrange for blood to be taken more centrally, as we had originally intended, it is possible that parents living in the centre of the city would have been more willing to co-operate.
The report gives no reason for not using a city centre hospital. Any Birmingham Member could have told the committee that if the samples were to be taken at a Sutton Coldfield hospital they would get a poor response from parents in the inner and middle rings of the city. The nearer to Sutton Coldfield, the higher was the response rate. In Sutton Cold-field three quarters of the sample turned up. The object of the exercise was not to test children in Sutton Coldfield but to test children who might be suffering blood lead pollution due to the incidence of the motorways. They are not at Sutton Coldfield.
There is no explanation for not using an inner city hospital. I understand from members of the working party that at Dudley Road hospital, an inner city hospital, there are better facilities than in any other hospital in the city for taking these blood samples. Indeed, Dudley Road hospital is the main hospital used for industrial cases, under the health and safety legislation, when checking on lead poisoning caused at work. What is more, the children's hospital, which is also an


inner city hospital, has facilities for taking these blood samples.
The response rate from parents in the inner city would undoubtedly have been higher if either of these hospitals had been used. I should like my hon. Friend, when he answers the debate, to say why Good Hope Hospital was chosen, and why it was not possible to use the other hospitals, because clearly this had an important impact on the samples that it was possible to take.
We have now been pushed off with another inquiry. We are told that another working party has been set up to look at the problem of pre-school children, because that was the problem highlighted in the report. This sort of inquiry, coupled with the inaction of the past, leads people in Birmingham, and those who take an interest in the problem of lead in petrol, to believe that somebody, somewhere, is in somebody's pocket. We understand that the new inquiry is to take place using children who attend day centres. I am reliably informed by a member of the Gravelly Hill working party that the known evidence from the literature available is that children under school age who attend day centres have, by definition, a lower blood lead level than any random sample that one cares to choose. We shall be looking, therefore, at a group of children who, it would appear, by definition have a lower level of lead in their blood than would usually be the case.
There is also the evidence that the parents who can get their children into day centres—it is a real scramble in inner city areas, where most of the day centres will be—tend to be the parents who know how to use the system and how to articulate their case, or get someone to do it for them. They are not slow in coming forward, in other words. That sort of parent, it may be thought, might take extra precautions to make sure that his children do not go around chewing lead products.
There is also the aspect of nutrition. It is known from the evidence that the better the nutritional inputs of a child, the more this can counteract high levels of lead from other sources. Children in day centres may well be getting higher nutritional inputs than children who are not at

day centres, who may be let loose during the day and who may not be adequately supervised or fed. It looks, therefore, as if the new inquiry will deal with a group of children bearing no relation whatsoever to the generality of children of preschool age who may be suffering from high blood lead levels. It looks as though the new inquiry has been fixed, in order to pacify those who are concerned about this, by using a fixed sample.
In the whole of the debate, which has gone on for years—and also since the report was published, only in late May this year—we have had, as usual, a deafening silence from the oil companies. They do not enter the debate. The most that they are prepared to say these days is that they will do or comply with whatever the Government require them to do. That is not a very satisfactory attitude for the companies to adopt, because we are here dealing with some of the most powerful organisations in the world, more powerful than many national Governments.
It has been shown that the gross national product of many oil companies is much greater than that of many national Governments in the world. They are able to move power and capital around the world, and are sometimes involved in toppling Governments. They are extremely powerful organisations. One sometimes questions whether the Department of the Environment at Marsham Street is really up to dealing with these organisations. I submit that it is not.
Even since the lead content of petrol dropped to 45mg per litre in 1976, we have used more lead in total tonnage of petrol than in 1975–2½ per cent. more—because of the increase in traffic. When we reach the EEC target of 40mg in 1981, which is the decision for this country—there are no plans to go lower—on present traffic predictions, within another six years more petrol lead will be pumped into the atmosphere, to be absorbed into the human body, than in 1981. We shall be back to where we started. The target of 40mg is not, therefore, satisfactory.
Our fellow citizens are entitled to expect that this issue is receiving top priority in the Government, but on present evidence they cannot have that expectation. Has a Cabinet committee looked at this or will one do so? Has the Central Policy Review Staff—the "think


tank"—done so? Either would be more powerful in the face of the oil companies than is the Department of the Environment.
There is plenty of evidence from people with no financial axe to grind that we may have to wait for a catastrophe, like an open dropping of IQ levels among children, before action is taken. I am not criticising the Minister who is here, or the Secretary of State, but responsibility should be lifted from a Miinster who also has responsibility for sport and recreation, which takes him constantly to all corners of the world. We need a doomwatch Minister, not a stopwatch Minister.
The present policy does not meet the requirements of the public. The argument always comes down to economics and trade. Our competitors—Germany, the United States, Japan and the USSR—all have requirements for less lead in petrol than we do. In some cases, no petrol containing lead is allowed to be sold in the USSR. The argument that vehicles would cost too much does not seem to fit. The United States requires lead-free petrol to be available in some areas.
If the countries that I have mentioned operate such policies, a warning light must be flashing, but it does not seem to be flashing in this country. The complacency of ministerial replies is the same as it has been over the last few years. In a letter from the responsible Minister, referring to a constituent who had raised the matter with me, I was told:
On present evidence, the complete elimination of lead from petrol, which Mr. Isabella suggests, is unnecessary. While it is accepted that the cost to the motorist of further reductions in the lead content would be relatively small, the effect on our overall balance of payments would be much more serious. The lead additive in petrol provides the octane number needed by vehicle engines. The alternative way of getting the right octane number is by more severe refinery processing, which would reduce petrol production, which in turn would mean that considerably more crude oil needed to be imported each year just to maintain the same quantity and quality of petrol as before.
The Minister then gave some figures which are not relevant, because we have since reduced the lead content of petrol. He went on:
In the face of economic factors of this magnitude, it is essential that a very careful assessment of the need for further measures is made before decisions are taken and we

are carrying out a thorough and urgent review of all the factors involved in the problem.
He was referring to the Gravelly Hill survey.
In an excellent series of articles in the Yorkshire Post, last October and November, the cat was let out of the bag. The paper had done a lot of research into the environmental effects of the economic and technical consequences of the internal combustion engine. One article told how the Americans had coped:
The principal destroyers of the higher-costs myth have been two of the most important oil men in the United States, Robert C. Gunness, president of the giant Standard Oil Company, and Dr. Vladimir Haensel, vice-president of the Universal Oil Products Company's Science and Technology Division.
Mr. Gunness, before a sub-committee on Public Health and Welfare, publicly declared that driving tests performed with lead-free petrol showed a three per cent. increase in mileage from using it exclusively. He also brought out the results of tests which showed there was actually a significant saving in automobile maintenance costs—less corrosion of the exhaust system, freedom from combustion chamber deposits, longer lived spark plugs and other benefits.
It all amounted to, he said, a saving of about four cents a gallon if the motorists turned to lead-free petrol and the maintenance savings at 1970 prices would have been as much as 45 dollars in a year's 15,000 miles motoring.
That lets the cat out of the bag.
Another article made clear how British Leyland, which exports many high-performance cars to the United States, was coping with the problem:
The production lines of British Leyland at Longbridge roll out thousands of cars with these engines that run on lead-free fuel. They are in fast cars like MGBs, TR7s
—in fact the TR7 was not made at Long-bridge, although I suspect that its engine was—
Triumph Spitfires and several models of Jaguar. But they are being produced purely for Leyland's export market, mainly the U.S.
A spokesman for the company explains: 'It's one of these measures taken on an emotional basis rather on any scientific evidence, although we accept there is an area of doubt about the effects of leaded fuel.'
The article refers to an emotional basis, but I would take some convincing that Leyland, even with all its problems, is not taking decisions on a commercial basis. The spokesman admits that there are some doubts about lead in petrol. So the British motor industry can cope.
Enough disquiet has been raised by this report and many others, but the layman must rely on the specialists, just as Ministers must rely on civil servants. There is no substantial conflict among the technical people, although some academics take a tougher line than others.
Dr. Robert Stephens, a chemist at Birmingham University who works in this field, was a member of the Gravelly Hill working party. He signed the report—there was no dissent or minority report—but on the day before it was published he gave an interview to The Birmingham Post, in which he suggested that although the figures and the evidence in the report were correct as they stood, the wrong conclusions had been drawn, bearing in mind fresh evidence which had come to light.
The Birmingham Post of 24th May, reporting on his statement the day before publication, said:
He now suggests that while blood lead levels worked out by the working party may be accurate the conclusions drawn are wrong.
He said: 'I now estimate that 20 per cent. of this city's'"—
Birmingham's—
inner area children under 13 experience a disturbance of central nervous system function because of high lead content in their bodies.'
This could affect their whole behaviour, making them anti-social and also damaging their intelligence, he said.
There is evidence from other researchers, both in Britain and abroad, that high blood lead levels affect the intelligence of those concerned. It attacks the central nervous system. It is one of the most toxic substances. Lead is not present in the body in a natural form. There is a food intake, but to put it in the body because of environmental factors is not something that we can tolerate.
For his sin of issuing a statement, Dr. Stephens was abused by a senior civil servant. He is unnamed, but I know that there were witnesses. There was a report in The Times of 26th July by Trevor Fishlock, headed
Top civil servant 'shouted at critic of report'
that said:
A member of a working party on lead pollution who dissented from a reassuring report by the Department of the Environment

on the effects of lead, especially on children, published in May, said yesterday that before the report came out he was shouted at by an enraged senior civil servant.
The report went on to quote Dr. Stephens as saying
I have never received such abuse in my life.…I was accused of jeopardizing the chances of more money being made available for research in this field.
It is important to say that the report is an excellent collection of data…to say there was no cause for concern is blatantly untrue.'
I want from my hon. Friend the Minister a categorical assurance that there is no chance of any funding being jeopardised for work in this area in the city of Birmingham, whether by the University of Birmingham or within any working party, because of Dr. Stephens speaking out on behalf of the public. I want that categorical assurance that protocol will not interfere with safety of citizens in Birmingham.
I understand that throughout the working party's deliberations those laymen who were not used to the machinations of the political process, but sat there as specialists carrying out their part of the working party's activities, were amazed by the protocol and the arrangements that operated between the city council authorities, the DHSS and the Department of the Environment representatives. The whole thing seemed to be very much preordained. It seems that many people sat on their pride and their principles and their little empires, making sure that we did not get from the working party as frank a report as clearly we could otherwise have received.
The introduction to the working party report, signed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, alludes to the problem of the pre-school children. He says:
The results in respect of the older children (those of school age) have been reassuring,
—that is contradicated by Dr. Stephens—
but there is some indication that there may be a problem of lead intake for some preschool children living in central areas.
In the conclusions, we read, in paragraph 127:
We have already indicated that this is a matter
—the point about the pre-school child-ren—
which urgently require further investigation.


The foreword to the report says that
there is some indication that there may be a problem".
By the time we reach the conclusion it is getting much tougher.
The paragraph continues:
The precise reasons for this finding are not yet known but the problem is clearly not related to the motorway interchange itself,
—the M6 interchange—
nor indeed does it seem at all likely that airborne lead in general is directly responsible.
Frankly, there is no evidence whatever for those assertions in the report. It is a travesty that that sort of statement appears in the conclusions in the report. It goes on to say:
The work is now entering a new phase and it is no longer sensible to treat it as an off-shoot of the particular points of public concern from which we started.
I do not accept that for one moment. The way in which the new survey is being rigged, as I said in opening, clearly gives cause for concern.
My hon. Friend may say "We accept that there was a problem with pre-school children, but it was only some of them, only 15 out of 429". There were only 423 from the random samples when 640 were needed. A few more were drummed up, making 429 pre-school children, of whom 15 had high blood lead levels. It may be said that 15 out of 429 does not sound many. However, when we realise that 110 of those 429 were from the Sutton Coldfield area—which, by definition, overloaded the sample—it becomes 15 from 319. There were problems with parents in the inner city not wanting to travel to the green pastures of Sutton Coldfield. The ratio of 15 out of 319 starts to look a little more serious at about 5 per cent. I hope that the Minister will not throw this 429 figure at me.
The population of this country, particularly the citizens of Birmingham, desperately need a little open government on this matter. We are not getting this. We are getting lots of reports from the Department of the Environment on the problems of lead in drinking water, in the environment, and on its significance to man as well as the report dealing with lead pollution in Birmingham. When we see the basis of the reports and realise that they can be attacked on simple points

of major public concern, it does not seem that they are worth a candle.
There was a feature in The Times on 25th July which gave cause for concern. I should like the local press in Birmingham to reprint the feature. It started out with a bald statement saying that
The Government is not telling us the whole truth about the danger to our children's health caused by lead in petrol. Assurances in the carefully-worded statements of the Department of the Environment and the avoidance of serious questions make the department look complacent and raise doubts about the quality of advice that ministers receive on this matter.
The feature continued with a statement that is the most damaging statement that could have been made against the Department, because it shows its gullibility and complacency. The article said:
The Government seems to be basing some of its assurance on a study published in The Lancet in 1974.
—I was familiar with this as a result of preparing for my Adjournment debate four years ago—
This concluded that there was no relationship between blood lead level and any measure of mental malfunctioning, no evidence of a link between disturbed children and higher blood levels.
But something was omitted from that report. This was a finding that the mean blood level for hyperactive children was higher than in non-hyperactives. Although the difference was said to be 'nearly, but not quite statistically significant' it should have been enough at least to add some reservations to the confident conclusions. The DoE knows about this omission.
This is the point about the new survey. What the Government ought to be doing, instead of having a rigged survey in day centres, is what has been done abroad. They should take two groups of preschool children, one with known high levels of lead in their blood and one with known low levels of lead in their blood. They should make all the tests necessary to eliminate other factors such as the age of the house, occupation of the father and whether someone has a habit of chewing lead products. Then we would be left with two groups of children with no known factors differentiating between them other than the fact that one group has high blood levels of lead and the other low levels. A psychiatric test should then be conducted on the children.
That is what has been done abroad, and that is what has led to some of the


most disturbing reports, which give cause for concern about the actions of the
Department of the Environment. That is the test that needs to be done in
Birmingham among the pre-school children, but I understand that it is not
going to be done.
The Department has shown itself to be somewhat gullible in this respect. It is
at a cost of a few pence on the price of a gallon of petrol—and we
must bear in mind that in the last few years, while the price at the pump
has more or less doubled in real terms it has probably gone down. It has
not risen with inflation over the last two years, as we saw when the
Finance Bill 1977 was going through the House. The Government then wished
to put 5p extra on petrol but were prevented from doing so.
If the argument is about putting another 2p or 3p on the price of petrol, I will
vote tomorrow to do it, and I do not think that the Liberal Party will
have the cheek to argue against it on the evidence that I have brought
forward—evidence that is abundantly available to hon. Members.
For the sake of a few pence on a gallon of petrol, we are exposing to serious
hazard future generations—not only ourselves—for whom it is
our responsibility to ensure a decent, clean, healthy environment in which
to grow up. We are exposing them to a known brain poison, a known
substance that works against the operation and functioning of the human
body.
It is not good enough for a Labour Government to say that we will go to the EEC
level of 40 mg. per litre in 1991, that we have no plans for doing
anything else about it except to set up another working party to report. A
year ago, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State wrote to the hon.
Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). He was replying to a letter from Mr.
John Mathews which the hon. Gentleman enclosed in his own letter to my
hon. Friend. Mr. Mathews had written about the lead content in petrol. He
is a member of the Conservation Society and has done a lot of academic
work on the subject. He has written articles for the New Scientist,
a highly reputable journal, which is not known for publishing scare
stories based on myth. Its articles are based on fact and give cause for
public concern.
In his letter, dated 19th September 1977, my hon. Friend made certain points in
three sentences. He said, first:
It is important to realise that airborne lead is unlikely to account for
more than a minor proportion of the total lead absorbed into the
body.
So what? I understand that it known that about 33 per cent. of the lead in the
body comes from airborne lead. I do not think that that is a minor matter.
My hon. Friend went on:
And it is the long term mean level of lead in air, rather than the short
period peaks seen, for example, at road sides…that is
important.
Of course that is true. No one arguing against the amount of lead in petrol is
resting his case on peak levels; the argument is based on the overall
level, the sort of level indicated in the report on lead pollution in
Birmingham.
My hon. Friend should not therefore make such a claim. Basically, the words he
used in his letter are those of the oil companies. He went on:
There is no evidence of any hazard to health attributable to lead in
exhaust fumes, or to lead in the general environment.
How in September 1977 my hon. Friend could include such a sentence in a letter
put up to him by civil servants I do not know. He was ignoring all the
mounting evidence that was available last year on the behaviour and mental
effects of lead in petrol. The facts are known from research throughout
the world. I hope that he will not include that sentence in his brief
tonight; if he has it, I hope that he will not use it, because I know that
he personally has done all he can in the Department. I pay tribute to his
efforts. In no way am I criticising him or the Secretary of State, because
they are not masters of the situation.
That is why I believe that there should be a Cabinet committee; otherwise the
matter should be referred to the "think-tank". I hope that my hon. Friend
will give the assurance that I ask for about the money that is to be spent
on this area of investigation, and that he will not depend on the vagaries
of some civil servant who got a little upset in Birmingham because some
person spoke the truth.

6.15 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I had


not realised that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Rooker) would go into such detail of the published evidence in a particular report or about things that had been said. He spoke about somebody shouting at a civil servant, and so on. I shall not concern myself with that but shall stick to the issue which has been raised, and many of the details will be examined.
My hon. Friend is right to say that we rely a great deal on advice. The advice that we get is from a wide variety of highly qualified medical people as well as those who are qualified to deal with pollution matters. Indeed, the working party which considered the matter had on it, apart from Dr. Stephens, who is a chemist at Birmingham University, many medical people who put their names to the report and on whose advice we continue to rely, as, indeed, we rely on advice from medical people in our own Department.
I know that one has to sort out the evidence that is given by these people, by our advisers in the central unit on environmental pollution, by the medical officers of various Departments and of local authorities, by the various journalists to whom my hon. Friend referred who submitted evidence and by people who have done some work on this subject in other parts of the world.
I should like to broaden the debate to take in the question of lead pollution in general, because the subject has received a great deal of publicity in recent weeks, mainly in connection with the report to which my hon. Friend referred but also, I think, because of the interest generated by an independent television programme into possible health effects of lead pollution. As often happens with a complex subject such as this, there have, I think, been a number of misunderstandings. I therefore welcome the opportunity to give an account of the Government's view of the problem and the actions that have been taken.
First, the Government are not complacent, and that includes my right hon. Friend and myself. Our concern and interest are by no means recent. My hon. Friend is rare by virtue of the fact that he has been going on about this for a long time, as, indeed, have the Government. About four years ago, probably

at the time of my hon. Friend's Adjournment debate, the late Anthony Crosland, the then Secretary of State, was saying that, while we had made good progress in controlling the most obvious forms of pollution, we were increasingly conscious of the need to look closely at pollutants that constituted less easily assessable hazards to health and the environment, and he instanced lead as one of them.
My hon. Friend spoke about these various reports. Indeed, the concern of the central unit of environmental pollution has been mainly in connection with lead in the various reports that have been made. We have had pollution paper no. 2, which I think my hon. Friend quoted, entitled "Lead in the Environment and its Significance to Man". We have had the Birmingham report "Lead in Petrol". We have concerned ourselves with the problem of lead in water in certain areas, and so on.
We published a thorough review of lead in the environment about four years ago. We said that it must always be a cause for concern. That review concluded that, although existing levels did not appear to present a health hazard to the general public, it would be prudent to ensure that those levels did not increase and to aim to reduce them in the areas and circumstances where people were most exposed to risks.
We have since been guided by that policy and have been working to identify more precisely how and where lead pollution arises and how it can best be contained. More recent work, which includes surveys of lead in people's blood, seems to confirm the view that there is no general health hazard, and research which has attracted a lot of publicity recently has suggested that lead levels that we have generally considered to be within acceptable limits may still present a hazard to mental development. Very recent research has shown this. I want to return to this later, but first I wish to set out the general advice of the Government's medical advisers.
Lead in blood can be taken as a measure of man's uptake of lead, and the generally accepted normal upper limit is taken to be 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of blood. The limit for the general population is one to which the World Health Organisation subscribes, and it is contained also in a recent EEC


measure on the monitoring of blood lead levels. Indeed, I was at the May meeting of the EEC Environment Ministers when their directive was approved. But the Government do not depend only on WHO and EEC views. We have our own medical officer of the Department of Health and Social Security, and he in turn is advised by a committee on which sit foremost independent experts, mainly medical experts.
The average level in the general population is about 20 microgrammes, well beneath this accepted upper limit. We shall have further information on the levels of blood of people living in urban areas soon as a major survey begins next year to measure the blood lead concentrations of sample populations in all cities of over 500,000 people, and also of critical groups who might be exposed to above average lead concentrations because they live near lead works, in areas where traffic is particularly heavy or where there is a high lead content in drinking water. We are carrying out inquiries in a number of areas, and we are doing so extensively.
Where does the lead that is taken up in people's bodies come from? The research that has so far been done on sources of lead in man indicate that most people's lead intake comes mainly from food and drink. In certain circumstances lead in air, either from industrial lead emissions or petrol lead, and lead in drinking water can make a significant contribution. The Government have been taking a number of steps to reduce the quantity of lead reaching man from all sources. Regulations dating from 1961 limit the amount of lead in most foods to two parts per million. The Government have this year published proposals which envisage that this should be halved to one part per million. On lead in air we have the controls operated by the Alkali Inspectorate, which require lead works to operate the best practicable means to prevent emissions, and we have a programme of reductions in the lead content of petrol designed to keep total emissions down to 1971 levels. I know that there are those, including my hon. Friend, who say we should be doing more to reduce petrol lead, and I shall come back to this presently.
Lead in drinking water is, of course, associated with lead pipes in areas where

the water supply has a tendency to dissolve lead. We published a survey last year on lead levels in drinking water which suggested that in a small percentage of households levels were above limits recommended by the WHO. The Department immediately started a comprehensive exercise to identify precisely the areas of high lead levels and to take action to bring the levels down to below the WHO limits. In most cases the water can be blended or treated. In the few instances where this is not practicable, some pipe replacement may be necessary.
Old lead paint is still an important source of lead, especially for children, and most cases of high blood levels or lead poisoning can usually be traced to flaking paint. There have been voluntary agreements with industry, and Government regulations on paint for toys have greatly reduced the lead content of paints. But there is still a legacy of danger in some of our older, poor-quality housing, particularly in the inner cities, where the decorative condition leaves much to be desired.
We are also keeping a close watch on levels of lead pollution by systematic monitoring of lead in food, air and water, giving special attention to areas where above-average values might occur. Any unusually high levels are the subject of further investigation. Monitoring is also carried out by local and public authorities. Indeed, another of the central unit of pollution reports has been on the question of monitoring all types of pollution, including lead.
Most of the concern expressed recently has centred on lead in petrol. We cannot be sure quite what proportion of lead reaches people through the air or in dust after it is emitted from car exhausts. For most people, even in cities, it will not be the main source. I think that my hon. Friend recognised this. But we cannot ignore the possibility that it may be a more important source for children and that it may be easier to reduce lead emissions from exhausts than to reduce exposure through food or drink. But doing it this way is something which would affect the whole of the country rather than the particular areas about which we are concerned.
I emphasise our special concern for children. As my hon. Friend knows, I


was a teacher before I was a politician. I have vivid memories of someone trying to explain to a group of teachers how to try to see things from a child's angle. One of the Sunday newspapers has published some photographs from this angle. The expression that stays in my memory after many years is "When you are three, the exhaust goes straight into your face."
So the Government have a special concern for children. They are committed to a programme of reductions of lead in petrol. This will take us down to 0·4 grammes per litre from 1st January 1981 in line with the target of the EEC directive on lead in petrol agreed in May. We in the Department recognise that further action will be required, and we are already considering what the next steps should be to maintain or reduce the level below the 1971 level. I should explain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for regulations relating to lead in petrol, but we are very concerned.
The possibilities for the future include not only the reduction or elimination of lead in petrol but the use of special exhausts to trap lead before it is emitted. We shall be considering the advantages and disadvantages of these alternatives. We have to look at this question in the light of the possible health risks from lead and the contribution that petrol lead makes. We have to consider also that the reducing of lead in petrol increases costs and also requires more energy, particularly at levels below 0·40 grammes per litre. It has been estimated that the reduction we are to make next from 0·45 to 0·4 grammes per litre will add about £30 million a year on the balance of payments because of the extra crude oil which will be required.
If we were to move to lead-free petrol or petrol with very small amounts of lead, there would be some cost to the car industry and to the refining industry, but the main point is still the extra energy costs to the country. We have to look at these costs very carefully in assessing the alternatives for further measures on exhaust emissions. If the balance of the equation differs, if we find that we can make cheaper leadless fuel or if the assessment of the degree of health risk changes, of course we may have to alter the pace of the programme. At the

moment, however, we do not think that is necessary.
Lately there have been suggestions that the health effects have been underestimated and that children may be damaged by amounts of lead previously thought safe. It is true that children are more at risk than adults. Their habits make them more likely to pick up lead in the form of dust and they absorb more of their total lead intake than adults. The recent survey of Birmingham children showed that a small proportion in the inner city had blood levels of over 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres. I think that the figure was 3 per cent. My hon. Friend referred to a figure of 15 which I had not seen.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is making a valid point. The 3 per cent. represents the 15 out of 429. I said it is really 15 children out of 319. That is nearly 5 per cent.

Mr. Marks: I take note of what my hon. Friend says.
Preliminary results of recent research in the United States and Germany suggest that there may be a relationship between blood lead levels below 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres and a number of behavioural and learning disorders in children. There is a great deal of work going on. Other work in this country and elsewhere has found no such relationship. Much of the work on both sides is subject to criticism and some new work, which was referred to in the article in The Times, is due to be published shortly.
I am advised that a number of people have been suggesting lately that the link is established between quite small amounts of lead and the mental development of children. It is a difficult area of research. The differences in the lead content in children's blood that are in question are very small to measure accurately, and differences in behaviour and mental ability are, as I know, notoriously difficult to measure. The Department, therefore, is commissioning research in this area this year, as my right hon. Friend announced on 12th July. We need to do the research because the area is doubtful. We do not expect ever to remove all the doubt, but we consider that we need more firm evidence before we take the action that has been suggested.
According to our advisers, the state of evidence—our advisers are not the oil companies but the medical people in the Department, the local authorities and universities—does not suggest the need for emergency measures. We have research in hand into the health effects of lead pollution, especially in children, into the levels of lead in the population, both generally and in specific circumstances where exposure may be greater, into the contribution of the various sources of lead and into ways of reducing lead pollution by, for example, treating plum-bosolvent water. That is being done in Glasgow. We have a programme of action to reduce people's exposure through lead in food and in water and to contain that from petrol.
We have been accused of ignoring the evidence said to link lead in petrol with serious health risks. We reject the criticism of complacency. It is right that there should be concern about lead pollution. It is right that people wish to be assured that there is not significant danger to them and their children from the various sources in lead in the environment. It is the Government's business to ensure that their reasonable and legitimate concerns are met by appropriate action. However, it is also the Government's business to ensure that expensive measures are justified by evidence or reasonable hypotheses about the source, levels and effects of lead. It would not be reasonable to embark on a very expensive series of measures unless we had good reason to believe that those measures were necessary. A balance needs to be struck.
If I and my right hon. Friends feel that children's health and development are being placed needlessly at risk, the House may be sure that we shall take the necessary action. We shall do so if the research that we have in hand should change our view of the balance of the evidence. With all due respect to the authorities which claim to have a monopoly of knowledge and concern in this area, we have still to be persuaded that the Government's programme is inadequate.
My hon. Friend raised a number of detailed matters about the work of the Birmingham committee. I have mentioned that it included a number of

medical people within the local authority and the Department. The assertion that in some way it could deliberately have come to a wrong conclusion, as Dr. Stephens suggested, is not tenable. My hon. Friend asked for an assurance that there will be no lack of funds for the ensuing investigations that we have already authorised. He made that request in view of something that Dr. Stephens said the day before the report was due to be published. I can give the assurance that there will be no lack of funds for the research on the ground that was suggested.

SPECIALIST MUSICAL EDUCATION

6.34 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Even at this late hour, I welcome the opportunity to raise a rather more salubrious subject than the topic of the previous debate—namely, music schools. I hope to do so in rather less time than the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) took to introduce his debate.
Music is perhaps the art that gives lasting joy to more people than any other. I say that at the risk of offending all the painting enthusiasts. It is something that lifts humanity above the more humdrum struggle for existence and makes life worth while. However, its continuance depends on the development of the talents of a limited number of gifted children in each generation. With the possible exception of ballet, which is well supported by public funds, music is probably the only art in which those talents must be developed at an early stage in a child's life.
There are only four specialist music schools in England providing the necessary training and education for this purpose. There is the Cheetham school of music in Manchester, the Yehudi Menuhin school, the Wells Cathedral school and the Purcell school in my constituency, in Harrow. Of course, many ordinary State schools encourage musical activity by their pupils—I know that Harrow does that extremely well and produces some good results—but that is quite different from the service rendered by the specialist music schools for particularly gifted and talented young musicians.
For this purpose we are talking about not more than 5,000 outstandingly gifted children in the whole country, or only one in 2,000 out of a total school population of 10 million. To get the best out of them, they need training in specialist schools for a number of reasons. They need close association with similarly gifted pupils; they need all aspects of music to be part of the curriculum rather than rushed dinner-hour sessions; they need facilities for instrumental practice during the day; they need opportunities for performance, boarding facilities and master classes by distinguished musicians, none of which is or can be available in ordinary educational establishments.
Of course, the costs involved present the few music schools and the parents of talented children with very great problems. This element of cost inhibites the progress which everybody would wish to see.
I can illustrate this matter by telling the House about the Purcell school in my constituency. It is a fine music school. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), who has taken a great interest in this subject, will confirm what I say if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) will speak of the excellent cathedral school in his constituency. Therefore, there is really all-party support for the case that I am presenting.
The Purcell school was founded in 1962 for young musicians. For some years it had desperate difficulty in keeping its head financially above water. It succeeded only through the dedication of parents, pupils and staff under the inspired leadership of Mr. Richard Taylor, who was also a member of the Vaizey committee, to which I shall refer shortly.
In 1975, through the generosity and enlightenment of the trustees of the late Arthur Gardner, who was one of the great benefactors of Harrow, the school was able to move to larger and very suitable premises on Harrow Hill. It has 120 pupils who are achieving impressive results. Only the other day a former pupil of the school was the only British finalist in the Carl Flesch international violin competition. The school is recognised as efficient by the Department of Education and Science, but so much more

could be achieved if more money were available.
The Minister will appreciate that there are special circumstances in these schools. The teacher-pupil ratio has to be quite different from that in other schools, and there are many additional costs connected with the instruments. The estimated cost per pupil at the Purcell school is £1,800 a year. The fees charged to parents at present, including instrumental tuition, amount to approximately £1,500 a year. No teacher at the school is paid above Burnham scale I—the lowest scale. One has to admire the sheer dedication of the staff in that respect.
It is true that some nearby local authorities place 18 pupils at the school, but the local authority contribution averages only £426 per annum per pupil. Therefore, even the parents of assisted children face a shortfall of anything up to £1,000 per annum. It is sobering to reflect how much talent has been wasted as a result of the cruel dilemma facing less-well-off parents. In addition, extra accommodation is urgently needed, at an estimated minimum cost of £200,000, in order to make the best of the school and inflation is forever pushing up this figure.
In her letter to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West on 25th July, the Under-Secretary who is to reply to the debate said that there was a possibility that the Purcell school could be voluntarily aided by a local education authority. I do not nor does the headmaster, to whom I spoke yesterday, know anything about this. I hope that the Minister can enlighten us, because her letter is, to say the least, cryptic in this respect. If this possibility exists, can the hon. lady assure us that her Department will give the consent that will be required?
We have had the advantage of a most thorough study of these problems by the Gulbenkian Foundation committee under the distinguished chairmanship of Lord Vaizey. Until now, all these schools have relied on fees and endowments to keep them going, but in the present economic climate they cannot hope to maintain, let alone increase, standards on this basis. As the Vaisey report points out, there are only two solutions—direct grant aid from the Government or voluntary aided maintenance by local authorities.
I submit that the direct grant is the proper course to adopt, and I do so for four reasons. First, education statutes provide that this could be done under existing law, and doing so would be wholly logical within the framework of the Government's education policy. Secondly, the principle that it can and should be done has been established, because the Yehudi Menuhin school at Leatherhead already receives a direct grant to the tune of about £82,000 a year, even though only about 30 of its 40 or so pupils come from this country. It is a fine school and I admire it tremendously, but I do not think that discrimination among the only four music schools in the country can be justified.
Thirdly, I believe that local authority aid is too varied and too restrictive in different parts of the country. It is altogether too hotch-potch, and musical talent does not divide itself up neatly into set local government boundaries. Fourthly, the public expenditure element involved is too small to cause even the most flinty Treasury Minister or monetary purist a moment's loss of sleep. I estimate that no more than £1 million is involved. I calculate that to be the equivalent of one two-hundredth part of the cost of a long-playing record per person per year —a very small price to pay to help those who will create those records in future.
The classic Treasury "floodgate" argument is not tenable in this case. Exceptional talent does not, alas, flood in that way. I believe that the Secretary of State for Education is sympathetic, but if she cannot get this unique item of expenditure past the Chancellor I do not know what she can get past him.
Therefore, I hope that the letter from the Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West dated 25th July does not mean that her mind is closed on this important subject. She has the backing of an important and thoughtful committee report. That committee went into the matter in great depth. She has a great opportunity to make a major contribution to music in this country and to give lasting joy to present and future generations.
I hope that this short debate will have helped the hon. Lady to fight for a most worthwhile cause.

6.45 a.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: I am pleased that this debate has taken place. I am also pleased that it is being conducted in the bipartisan manner that is apparent.
I have been on a delegation to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who agreed to consider the points that were made very carefully. I have worked all my life in trying to eliminate social selection in education. Someone in my position has a right to say something about this problem, which is one to which all British Governments—because traditionally we are a somewhat more philistine country in our Governments than many on the Continent—ought to pay greater attention.
As the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) has made clear, the matter is now ripe for the development of policy within the Department of Education and Science, because the Vaizey report has indicated what the problem is and some of the lines on which it could be solved. I shall comment on that matter shortly.
This debate is about grants for secondary schools for specialist musicians. A lot of the Vaizey report was connected with further education and the Royal colleges and the other music colleges in Britain. But it really is not possible to develop a system of further education in music in the country as a whole if it is not underpinned by something at secondary school level. That is why I have always felt that it is this section of the Vaizey report which we must try to get right if we are to be able to develop music in the other ways that the report suggested.
My first question to my hon. Friend is this. Has the Department got what one could call a policy on secondary schools for music yet? Having been a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department on two occasions in the last 15 years, I am aware of the fact that there are quite a lot of areas on which the Department has not got a policy. I very much suspect that this area is one of them. I am not criticising the Department for this. However, since the Vaizey report, this is an area in which policy can now be developed and ought to be developed.
The hon. Member for Harrow, Central said that he was talking about no more than 5,000 pupils. In the first stages of this policy, I am not sure that we are talking about any more than 500 specialist musicians, very talented musicians, in the whole country.
However, as I see the matter at present, one could state the Department's policy a bit like this: "We have the Yehudi Menuhin school. It is a bit of an accident and a bit of an anomaly. It got slipped through as a direct grant school out of the responsibility of the Arts Council in 1972"—there was no debate in the House and no one really realised what was happening. "However, we do not want to extend that particularly and we feel that the other schools can fend for themselves." If I am being unfair to the Department, I hope I shall be told, but that seems to be the policy at present. I hope that we can get a bit beyond that.
The letter which I received on 25th July from my hon. Friend said:
We are not convinced therefore that the case has been made out for additional public expenditure that would be involved in the proposals outlined by the three schools.
I am not sure that this is a problem of public expenditure at this point. I suspect that it is more a problem of agreed policy about how to tackle this question.
If the problem of putting other schools on the same basis as that of the Yehudi Menuhin school were a problem of public expenditure, I am sure that it would be possible to phase a programme over a very large number of years, if necessary, until one had a system under which we had in this country specialised schools for these exceptionally talented musicians which covered the country in a proper way. It is ludricrous to suggest that the 30 or so youngsters, nearly all specialising in stringed instruments, who are supported by direct grants at the Yehudi Menuhin school, cover the whole problem. They do not even cover all the instruments of an orchestra.
The great dilemma is that the Government have indicated that they feel that the solution to greater financial support for the other three schools that are not being financially supported by the Government at the moment—the Purcell, Cheetham in Manchester, and Wells Cathedral school—is some sort of

voluntary aided status supported by local authorities.
Perhaps that will be possible, but as one who knows a good deal about local education authorities I can say that the present trend of falling rolls, with fewer children coming into schools, creates a tremendous problem for local authorities, which are more concerned with the closure of schools. For any but the most adventurous of local authorities, the prospect of opening schools against that background is particularly daunting.
Therefore, is there anything that the Department can do in its relationships with the local authority associations to push its policy forward? If there is not, it will look like a get-out, a method by which the Department can say that it wants to help while doing nothing.
There is another problem. The Purcell school may accept that as a solution, but the other two—Wells and Cheetham's —probably would not. Cheetham's in Manchester is a very well established music school, drawing from local authorities in the Greater Manchester area and beyond and with, over many years, a close association with the Northern College of Music. The school is located in the middle of Manchester, surrounded by a large number of local education authorities. It simply would not be the right solution in Manchester for one of those authorities to take over Cheetham's. It would be far better to produce some other solution, and that is why I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister has not ruled out some sort of direct grant aid.
I do not need to remind the House that the Yehudi Menuhin school is not a direct grant school in the same way as Manchester grammar school and Bradford grammar school used to be direct grant schools. The form of direct grant is quite different. I think that it ought to be perfectly acceptable, if this seems to be the right solution, to extend that principle from the Yehudi Menuhin school to these other schools, because the very real problem facing these schools is this.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in her letter to me, says that 400 specialists at these four schools receive some support from public funds, either by fee remission—there are only about 30 of them at the Yehudi Menuhin school—or


by discretionary grants from local education authorities. That is true—a tot of them get discretionary grants from local education authorities—but the point is that the regulations for the Yehudi Menuhin school in administrative memorandum 1573, issued by the Department of Education and Science when the school was started, actually lay down a scale of fees, so that it is possible to calculate the finances of the school, how much it needs and how much the parents have to contribute.
But in the case of all the other local education authorities in the country, as I understand the position, there is no nationally laid down scale of fees, and the real problem which is now appearing —particularly at Cheetham's, where I had some discussions yesterday with the headmaster—is that more and more local education authorities pay such a low level of discretionary grant that a lot of pupils, although the local education authority thinks that it is making it possible for them to go to the school, are not able to go to it at all, and the grants are small and ineffective.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary this specific question. If in carrying this matter forward she has discussions with the local authority associations about it, will she consider laying down an indicative scale of fees in order to give some guidance to local education authorities as to the level of discretionary grants that they should make, if they decide to make a discretionary grant at all? It seems silly to make grants which then cannot be taken up, sometimes because of ignorance by the local education authority of the level of costs involved in the whole business of training and educating highly talented specialist musicians.
I want to deal also with the matter that the hon. Member for Harrow, Central dealt with, sometimes called the proliferation point. I speak very much as a Member of the hon. Lady's own side here. When we met her recently, fears were expressed about proliferation. If the Government were to go beyond the direct grant for the Yehudi Menuhin school, where would it stop? I should have thought that the answer is in the Vaizey report. It is quite obvious where it stops. It stops with the four schools

in England and the one school in Scotland mentioned in the report. The very great danger of not acting on that report is that there are several local authorities in Britain which are trying to save what are perfectly ordinary grammar schools by the thoroughly phoney method of renaming them specialist music schools and by doing a little bit of specialist music at them. This proposal has come up in the London borough of Enfield, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) would confirm, except that as a Whip he is not allowed to say anything. He would do so if he could.
There are other local education authorities—advised, unhappily, by the Opposition spokesman for education—who would use any legal device to try to perpetuate a grammar school system under another name. Although I am quite sure that my hon. Friend's Department might be very much alive to this sort of thing, the Department's experience in the courts over the last few years is such" that, whatever the Department may decide, it may be worsted elsewhere. Having no policy produces far more proliferation than accepting the Vaizey report, which limits the extent of these talented musicians. The direct grant system as operated at the Yehudi Menuhin school might be the easiest solution.
One problem with two of these four schools is that not all their children can be described as exceptionally talented musicians. Both the Purcell school and Wells admit that. That is a real problem with taking them over as voluntary schools. But there is no problem with the formula at the Yehudi Menuhin school, under which a certain number of pupils can be designated as having exceptional musical talent, with the direct grant allocated in respect of them alone.
The Department has a dual responsibility. For one reason or another—I believe for a bad reason—we are the only country in Europe not to have a Minister for cultural affairs with the ear of the Treasury and the Prime Minister. The reason why other countries foster artistic talent more than we do is the historical situation. The Department therefore not only must organise an educational system with as much equity as possible but bears a national cultural responsibility for artistic people of exceptional talent.
When, along with my hon. Friend, I sat through the long hours of debate on what became the 1976 Education Act, I never saw the saving clause which excepted music, dancing or any other art as a negative clause designed simply to legalise the position of the Royal Ballet school and the Yehudi Menuhin school. I saw it as implying a positive policy. I have fought all my life, with some success, for the elimination of selection in education, which purports to breed an educational elite but actually breeds a social elite. But this is not a problem in the arts. The arts are blind to class, if for no other reason than that there is no money in it.
If we were to direct-grant this limited number of pupils, there is no danger of the problems arising of selection and elitism in education which the Minister does not want—and nor do I. There is a real argument that this small number of children need a great deal of association with other specialists to develop their talents. In big areas like London there are excellent solutions, such as the Pimlico school—I do not object to that at all—but smaller local education authorities simply cannot do that. There must be some arrangements for boarding as well as day schools along these lines. The four schools that I have mentioned cover the country appropriately.
I appeal to the Minister to keep an open mind on this issue. It will be some time—over the next 10 years—before any Government develop their policies in this area. It is a difficult situation for local authorities, some of which will always be downright philistine and a few of which will never support the talented specialist musicians. I ask my hon. Friend to reply as generously and as openly as she can. I hope that she can give more interpretation of a somewhat cryptic letter. I do not complain about that—sometimes cryptic letters are better than clear ones because they leave the matter open. I hope that she will say something also about a standard indicative level of grant.

7.7 a.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: I am glad to be able to take part in this debate on a narrow but important subject. I can claim no special knowledge, so I have carefully relied on the Gulbenkian-sponsored Vaizey report on musical edu-

cation. I pay tribute to the helpful way in which it provides the background for someone like myself. We should take advantage of the wisdom of this important report, bearing in mind the distinction of the committee's members. It should be noted that at least one member was from one of the local education authorities, which brought in knowledge of that aspect of the subject.
Having read the report carefully, I was disappointed by the letter that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) received from the Under-Secretary. As he said, it was cryptic and may be open to further consideration, but it dismissed far too readily the pivot of the Vaizey committee's argument. The committee highlighted these four schools, with strong musical background, offering general education as well as specialist musical education—four centres of musical teaching excellence, by accident well spread throughout the country. Coming from the West Country, where distances are great and many people do not have such opportunities to listen to good music in the "live" and to be brought up in the atmosphere which children might have when living in the centre of a metropolitan area such as London or Manchester, I think that the accident is good. It is one which we should try to exploit nationally.
The point that comes through the Vaizey committee's report is that no exceptionally talented child should be prevented from obtaining a place at one of the specialist music schools to which he has been admitted because of his qualifications simply because the local authority refuses to pay the fees, his parents are unable to pay them or there is no trust or scholarship fund available.
The reply from the Department seems to have missed that point. We are not asking for more generous support for more pupils on any great scale. That is not the point behind our message today. We are asking for some support to enable a very few gifted children to obtain this specialist musical education, which is not necessarily available to them elsewhere, or for whom the conditions of their educational establishments are not necessarily the best suited to them to obtain this specialised training.
I do not dispute that the main bulk of the provision of musical education should be provided by the local education authorities. The Department uses the words "rightly so" in the letter. I am not sure that I think that those words should be there, if they mean an exclusive provision by the local education authorities. If it is exclusive to them, it dismisses the Vaizey tenet that gifted musicians of slender means should have the same chance to obtain a place in a school of undoubted excellence as anyone else.
I found one sentence in the important letter from the Department very obscure. I hope that the Minister will explain what she means by this:
There must be some reservations about the appropriateness for more than a small number of children of the kind of concentrated experience these schools provide.
I very much hope that this is not an anti-elitist feeling coming through from the Department in a cryptic way. If that is so, it cuts right across the Vaizey report's argument. The report endorses the need for specialist musical education for a very small number of children. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West suggested that it was a very small number. His was the sort of number that I have had told to me by a number of people who are specialists in the matter. Not many children are in a position to qualify or benefit from this type of specialist school.
The additional public expenditure argument is trotted out again, but the children in question are being educated anyway to a large extent on public expenditure. They are paid for by the local authorities and the rate support grant. Although I realise that it is not quite fair to say that all the money would be transferred to these schools, some of it would be, so that the extra cost to the Government, small though it is, would not be entirely additional. In some respects it is a substitute. I hope that the Department does not have a closed mind and that this letter is not its last word.
Wells Cathedral school, by its long tradition and the ambitions of those who run this excellent school, is, in the words of the Vaizey report, something of a specialist school for the Bristol and West of England area. Its individual approach has been to develop highly specialised musical training within the

framework of a normal academic curriculum. Within today's practicalities, the school believes that it must remain an independent school. It is a large independent school with 620 pupils, day and boarding, taking an academic education alongside and including 70 or so of the specialist musicians in the school.
The Wells Cathedral school feels that its ambition to develop as the specialist musical school for the West of England could well be unduly restricted by any major alteration in the way it is organised and paid for. Nevertheless, it wants to keep the local authority links as far as possible. Its experience, however, with local education authorities has been that obtaining grants for the children who come to the school has been cumbersome and not altogether satisfactory. That is not surprising because the local education authorities, particularly in the rural areas, are under great pressure as regards the funds available for specialist education, particularly out-county education. They are naturally reluctant, when the pressure is on their own schools, to provide funds for out-county education. To rely on local education authorities in future will not be wholly satisfactory for a school such as Wells.
The proposal which we put forward, and while it is one of a number of alternatives it seems the most sensible, is that we should seek to fall in behind the Yehudi Menuhin formula, with certain direct grant places. For Wells the figure of 70 places has been suggested. I am certain that that would be a flexible proposal, subject to give and take, depending upon what the Department decides. It is believed that the Yehudi Menuhin example offers the best way of tackling the problem.
The direct grant solution seems to be the way forward but I have no doubt that the Department may have other solutions. We would like to hear any alternatives that it has in mind, bearing in mind the difficulties of relying on local authority out-county grants, or local authority direct grants in the case of Somerset, to pupils attending the school.
My colleagues representing constituencies all over the South-West are fully in support of the idea of Wells Cathedral school pupils being given some means of support so that we have this centre of musical excellence in our area.
The four schools we have been talking about are of great importance to the development of the arts in this country. We are fortunate indeed that there are a small number of these highly talented children who can be trained up to devote their lives perhaps to music, giving the rest of us the enjoyment that we are bound to have from them when they deploy their talents to the full later on in life. They will certainly repay the community for whatever we are able to give them at the start of their lives, not only to the enjoyment but subsequently to the great pride of their fellow countrymen. I therefore ask the Minister to think again and give the matter a lot more consideration.

7.21 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): Like those who have already spoken, I welcome the chance of this debate, the more so because I was rather dismayed to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) saying that he found my letter somewhat cryptic. I think he will acknowledge that it is not my habit to be so. Certainly it would appear that a little clarification is necessary.
Let me at once say, therefore, that the letter which my hon. Friend received, and which he feels was not as plain as he would have liked, was intended to say to him that we have considered this solution but do not believe it to be the right answer.
I was also a little dismayed to hear my hon. Friend questioning whether the Government had a policy on this matter. I hate to disillusion him but, yes, it is the case that we have a policy on this matter, even in the Department of Education and Science. That policy is that it is the maintained system of education that should be the principal focal point for musical education and training for all school-age pupils.
The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) suggested that this was perhaps in some ways a slightly narrow debate, and I would accept that. I think that that is a consequence not merely of the fact that this is a rather specialised subject but of the fact that we have perhaps treated it a little narrowly in that the debate has concentrated on these schools alone and

has not looked fully into the position even in regard to those schools.
The underlying assumption in the debate has been that for students of above-average ability or above-average interest in music there is a need for a greater amount of this kind of musical education. There was also an assumption that this particular approach to musical education is the right one for pupils with a particular degree of musical talent.
We are conscious of the fact that for students of such musical talent there are a number of alternatives. For example, a number of local education authorities sponsor music centres, usually at weekends, which provide excellent opportunities for such young people to study to a high standard. Also, for musicians who are at maintained schools but who have shown considerable musical talent, there are junior exhibitions at the main music colleges, which again are sponsored by education authorities. The Royal Academy, for example, has more than 100 places at present taken up by local authority sponsorships.
These opportunities are well patronised and it seems to us that they meet the needs of the large majority of children who want, or whose parents want them, to continue their interest in music to an advanced standard. We would not argue that there is not scope for improvement—there is always scope for improvement in development—and there is work going on.
The Schools Council, for example, is doing work on the musical education of young children for primary schools, and it has a secondary school music project. All this is directed at improvement in the general level of musical provision in maintained schools, apart from this allied opportunity for children of exceptional talent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West only touched on the Pimlico experiment, and I would like to say a little more about it. Since 1971 ILEA has incorporated a special music unit in this school in Pimlico, which is simply a large maintained comprehensive school. About 15 places a year are available for children who have shown outstanding instrumental ability or potential. The activities and music tuition are specially timetabled, but for the most part


these children are part of the mainstream of the school and take most of their lessons with the other pupils. There are now about 90 musicians taking part in this work among about 1,600 other pupils.
There is a substantial and growing body of opinion which feels that there is considerable value in young musicians of this kind continuing to mix in the general educational and social environment of the ordinary school, and we hope very much that it is the kind of experiment which other authorities will consider, with authorities perhaps working together rather than as individual authorities, as my hon. Friend suggested.
We recognise, as I think I have indicated in my description of the Pimlico work and of other music centres, that children who are gifted in instrument playing need special arrangements, or may well need them, but by definition this applies to only a very small minority of children, and there are indications that in many county schools such children are being identified and that the right course of study is being made available for them.
We recognise that there will be children whose parents feel, or perhaps whose authorities feel, that they are likely to profit from going to one of these independent schools or to an independent school which specialises in music and that this approach is the right one for the child. In circular 6/77 we made it plain to local authorities that when a place of that kind was being taken on grounds of musical or dancing ability, an authority did not come under the general requirement to apply for specific approval to the Secretary of State to take up such a place. We have, therefore, shown that we are aware that there are authorities which wish to take steps of this kind, but it is entirely up to local education authorities whether they take these steps. I shall return shortly to whether that is or is not desirable.
One other aspect of the debate on which I want to touch is that those who have spoken mentioned that there is already local authority participation on this basis of free choice by the authorities, but I think they glossed over a little the extent of the public support that this participation provides. For example, I understand that Cheetham school receives fees

from more than 50 local education authorities and this covers 85 per cent. of the pupils attending the school. I recognise —I think it was my hon. Friend who made the point—that these payments vary in size from one authority to another, but I am told that in 1977–78 the sums involved amounted to about £372,000—about 60 per cent. of the school's total income.
At Purcell, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), I gather that about 20 students are supported by local education authorities at a cost of £8,000. I am told that at Wells there are about 70 specialist musicians and that of these about 10 receive help from local authorities with about £14,000 a year. This represents investment by local authorities of nearly £400,000 a year. As I have said, and, indeed, as has been said by hon. Members, authorities are able to increase these sums and increase their participation if they think fit to do so. This is a fairly substantial sum and not one that should be passed over as though it is of no consequence.
All hon. Members who have spoken have suggested that the variation in sums is undesirable and that there would be authorities which would be unwilling to incur the expenditure at all, even on a fairly minimal level, and that this would be a main reason for young people not getting a grant. But I must say to all three hon. Members and, indeed, to others who have written to me about this matter that there are authorities which consider, perhaps justly, that they can cater for their most able young musicians in their own schools. Equally, there are authorities—they may or may not be the same ones—which may be dubious about the wisdom of over-encouraging children to specialise from such an early age, even though this is an area in which a start at an early age is expected. These are problems which the inspectorate and others have spent a lot of time discussing and considering and on which discussion and consideration will continue.

Mr. Christopher Price: That illustrates my fears about policy. My hon. Friend has just said that some local authorities may have doubts about early specialisation for very talented musicians. As I took it from the Secretary of State's letter to Lord Vaizey, immediately after


the Vaizey report, the Government accepted the argument for early specialisation for very talented musicians. What is my hon. Friend doing to persuade those local authorities of Government policy?

Miss Jackson: With the greatest possible respect, I think that my hon. Friend is falling into the trap which has been evident throughout the debate. The Government do indeed accept that there is a need for specialist training and assistance for talented young musicians. The question is whether it is precisely the kind of specialist training which is available at these schools which all young musicians need and whether this is exactly the sort of provision which ought to be made and encouraged. There is a difference between saying "Yes, there is a need for specialist help" and saying that that help can be provided only in this particular way. That is the contention about which some of us perhaps have doubts.
As regards what we as a Government are doing and our encouragement to local authorities to consider these matters, I have already explained that discussions about this are constantly going on with authorities and within authorities. But, after the meeting which my hon. Friend and the other hon. Members attended, it became clear to me that it was not merely a matter of our encouraging the local authorities to involve themselves in discussions with these schools but that there were stringent conditions which the schools themselves would put on their involvement with local authorities. It seems to me that it is not merely a question of what the Government are going to do to encourage local authorities to work with these schools and to formulate particular ways of working with them. It is also a matter for the schools themselves.

Mr. Anthony Grant: With regard to the specialist music schools, the case for them was argued very clearly in paragraphs 90 to 92 of the Vaizey report. Am I to take it that the hon. Lady's advisers in her Department point blank disagree with that, because that is the effect of what she is saying?

Miss Jackson: I am not saying that we point blank disagree with it. What I am saying is that perhaps we have reservations about whether this is the only answer and whether this is the total

direction in which we should aim our policy and assistance. In fact, I am saying that we do not 100 per cent. accept the case in the Vaizey report and that we think there are other arguments to be considered.
Considerable reference has been made to the fact that grants are made to the Yehudi Menuhin school as well as to the Royal Ballet school, although that is a rather separate issue. Grant is paid in fee remission for about 40 children. In the year 1977–78, which is comparable with the figures I quoted earlier, the grant paid was about £82,000. My hon. Friend queried whether it was the case that we were stuck with the Yehudi Menuhin school and simply did not wish to extend our participation to other schools. I must say that his cynicism on this occasion is unjustified.
Like other hon. Members, I am not a specialist in these matters. As I understand it, however, there is a very serious argument which suggests that it is string players who need to start their training at such an early stage and that this is not as necessary for pupils who are studying other instruments. Therefore, there is a very clear musical reason for supporting the Yehudi Menuhin school, which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, specialises in string instruments, rather than the other schools involved. That is one of the factors which we have indeed considered.
We recognise, however, that the system that exists may cause difficulties for individual students. We are concerned about this. However, it is difficult to quantify the need. I think it was agreed at the meeting I had with hon. Members some weeks ago that it was hard to quantify the need for specialist music places and certainly the unmixed need for which the case was being argued. I understand that Cheetham's, for example, says that it has six good students a year who find it difficult or who, perhaps, in the end do not succeed in getting support. This is a rather different matter from the arguments about 500 which were being advanced earlier.

Mr. Boscawen: We are talking about a very small number. The 500 was the global figure. We are talking about tens or twenties.

Miss Jackson: I recognise that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman in turn will recognise that already substantial sums are being made available from public funds to help such pupils in this way and to give them this form of musical education, quite apart from the sums which are being provided in different ways more directly through the maintained system.
Several hon. Members said that no doubt public expenditure constraints would be called in aid, that this was not really a serious matter and that there were few schools—on the argument of the Vaizey report, as I understand it—which would be able to claim to be treated similarly. The hon. Gentleman will be as aware as I am that the fact that one could quote the Vaizey report would not make any difference. There are 30 or so choir schools which have already indicated to the Department that, if a change were made in the provisions, they would wish to take advantage of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West mentioned that many of these schools, as, indeed, some of the schools that we are discussing, are selective on academic grounds quite apart from their musical provision. Although he is arguing for support only for the schools which are musically selective, nevertheless it would involve us in giving financial support to assist in the continued existence of selective schools.
I hope that I have already indicated to hon. Members—I certainly hope to convince them by the end of the debate—that it is not simply a matter of public expenditure. It is a question of whether this is the right way for us to go.
I was asked to say a little about the possibility of Purcell school becoming a voluntary-aided school. I hope that the hon. Member for Harrow, Central, will forgive me if I offer to write to him, because I have no notes on the matter at present and I should hate to mislead him or to quote a local authority incorrectly. I undertake to write to him.
So we are left with the present position. If we have reservations, as we have, about the proposals being advanced by hon. Members that local authorities have

discretion to pay grants, questions arise as to on whose behalf they pay them and as to the amounts they pay. I recognise that this can lead to undesirable anomalies. I think also that it has certain advantages, because it is only the local authorities which know what provision is available in their area, what other help is available and what other help they make available themselves or which neighbouring authorities make available for individual children. It would be undesirable if we sought to control more stringently what they do without having the benefit of their local knowledge and of the studies they have been able to make of the possibilities for each individual child.
We think that the case hon. Members have made has not been proved. We do no think that at present it is right for us to recommend or to implement some direct grant status for these schools on the lines of that for the Yehudi Menuhin school, and we believe that the development of musical training by the maintained system is the direction in which at present we should be going.
I offer what I hope will be some small comfort to hon. Members. We were concerned that some of the information about the sort of response that is needed in musical provision is not fully available and that certain questions have not been asked about the degree and sort of need for such provision. We are prepared to consider whether we need more research into the needs of able musicians of school age in order to shed light on such matters. If there were a general feeing that that research would be useful and if a specification could be agreed, we might be willing to take part in it. That would have to be without prejudice to the outcome.
I am afraid that I shall have disappointed hon. Members in that I have not been able to give them a response different from the one they have already had from me on this matter. I hope they will recognise that there are a number of arguments to be considered. I hope that they will be prepared to reconsider their position on the basis of a further study into the degree, kind and extent of the need for specialist musical provision.

TAXI FARES

7.42 a.m.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to take part in the debate.
First, I have an interest as the majority of London taxi drivers live in my constituency of Redbridge-Ilford, North. It has been known for some time that they have had a claim for a fare increase of about 28 per cent. The Government have continually claimed that the trade is entitled only to an increase based on the Government's wage guideline of 10 per cent. I consider that assumption to be wrong and I shall try to go about proving why I think it wrong.
The cost of taxis in the past few years has almost doubled. The cost of diesel fuel has increased by 50 per cent. We must remember that the amendment to the 1977 Budget effected a reduction in the cost of petrol but not in the cost of diesel fuel. The reduction in the cost of petrol was of no benefit to the licensed trade.
If we compare licensed trade fare increases for taxis with other increases, we arrive at some interesting facts. The facts have been put before the House before but I think that they need to be repeated. British Rail fares from January 1975 to January 1977 increased by 93 per cent. During the same period London Transport fares increased by 126 per cent. while Underground fares increased by 147 per cent.
It has been reported in the national press—this causes me some concern—that due to a certain amount of hardship taxi drivers who are inexperienced mechanics are now beginning to maintain their own vehicles. I ask the Under-Secretary of State whether she knows anything about that and whether any research has been done by the Home Office or by any other body to ascertain whether the public are in danger as a result of drivers servicing their own vehicles who may not be experienced in that work. Clearly they are doing so to save money because of the present situation.
I refer to the Adjournment debate on 8th March. The Minister said that the trade was growing in size. I have spoken to taxi drivers and the taxi organisations

and I have heard rumours that many firms have gone bust since March. Is the hon. Lady able to inform us how many taxi firms have ceased to exist since March and how much unemployment that has caused?
The Minister spoke of taxi fare increases over the years since 1975. She said:
As for the hon. Gentleman's second question, fares have been substantially increased since the middle of 1975. There was an increase averaging 30 per cent. in July of that year. A further increase of 10p per hiring—that is, 13 per cent.—took place in December 1976. There was a third increase of 10 per cent. in December 1977. These increases represent a total increase of 61.6 per cent. over the early months of 1975.
If that is the case, it is interesting to note that the Minister also said that the average increase that the taxi drivers were asking for on an average journey was 25 per cent. If that were to be added to the 61.6 per cent., we should be talking about a fare increase of 86.6 per cent. over the same period that British Rail increased fares by 93 per cent., London Transport by 126 per cent. and the Underground by 147 per cent.
There is another interesting factor about which I should like clarification. Of the 61·6 per cent. increase that the Minister claimed the licensed trade received during that period, how much was attributed to wages and how much to costs due to inflation, taxation and so on? It was not clear in the debate on 8th March exactly what percentages fell where. It would be useful to have that information for clarification.
It would appear that there is some justification for the claim that the taxi drivers are making. But I am particularly disturbed, perturbed and worried that this matter has gone on being protracted for some time now.
In the Adjournment debate on 8th March we were told:
The hon. Gentleman asked two specific questions about the Price Commission. He asked for an assurance about when the Price Commission would report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has directed the Price Commission to examine the prices, costs and margins of the taxi and private hire trades and to report to him not later than 30th June. I have no reason to expect other than that it will report by that date."—[Official Report, 8th March 1978; Vol. 945, c. 1574–75.]


We have now gone well past 30th June and we still have not received the report from the Price Commission. I understand that it is likely that the report will be received by 30th September. But are we then to be told that it will be 30th December? Will the matter go on and be protracted still further?
I am very concerned about this matter, because we also received an undertaking that, by getting that report by 30th June, if the Price Commission were to agree to a fare increase, it would help the licensed trade during the tourist season in the summer months. That has now been missed. Any report on 30th September, if it should allow an increase, will mean that the tourist trade will have been missed this year.
I wonder whether the stalling by the Government, the Price Commission and others has anything to do with what hag been mooted in the past—the possible nationalisation of the taxi service. We heard that from the GLC 12 or 14 months ago. I should like clarification by the Minister on whether the Government have any plans now or in the not too distant future to nationalise the taxi service.

7.48 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): I know from the correspondence that I have had with the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) that he has taken a great interest in this subject on behalf of his constituents.
First, I should like to outline the general position before coming to particular matters. In England and Wales outside London, the primary responsibility for fixing taxi fares lies with the district council. It may exercise powers to control taxi fares under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 or under local Acts. In all cases, it would be expected to have regard to national policy on pay and prices and to the need to win the battle against inflation. In those cases where taxi fares are fixed by bye-laws made under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is the confirming authority and therefore has a direct influence over increase in fares

In London, taxi fares are determined directly by my right hon. Friend. These fares apply to all taxi journeys in London, whatever their length, provided that they begin and end within the Metropolitan Police district. The responsibility has rested with the Home Secretary for many years. I believe that the original purpose in regulating London taxi fares was to achieve uniformity, but over the years it has been necessary for various factors to be borne in mind in determining the appropriate fare scale.
The normal procedure has been for representatives of the London taxi trade to make proposals for fare increases which are then discussed with Home Office officials before an order is made. These discussions have proved difficult in recent years because of the absence of reliable factual and statistical information, which is what the hon. Gentleman asked for, particularly in relation to drivers' earnings. It has nevertheless become increasingly recognised in recent times that there is a relationship between the level of taxi fares and the level of drivers' earnings. This may seem obvious to the outsider, but the hon. Gentleman and those involved in the trade will know that the very variety of arrangements between vehicle owner and vehicle driver makes it difficult to reach general conclusions on the mathematical relationship between the level of taxi fares and the level of drivers' earnings.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of specific points. I do not believe that one can compare taxis with British Rail and London Transport, which are far larger and have huge infrastructures—unlike taxis. He mentioned vehicle maintenance and I refer him to my letter of 19th June in which I replied to that point which he had raised in correspondence.
There are about 12,000 licensed taxis in London and about 16,000 licensed drivers. The number of owners of taxis has increased steadily since 1972. It is now 7,464. The number of drivers of taxis has increased steadily since 1972 and now stands at 16,474 and the number of taxis has increased steadily in the same period and now totals 12,452.
The arrangements under which these taxi drivers operate vary considerably. There are some drivers who own their


own taxi. There are some who rent their taxi by the day, or week or longer. In this case, the drivers either pay a fixed daily or weekly rental, or share the daily takings with the owner of the taxi in predetermined proportions. This rather complicated variety of situations means that discussions on changes in the level of London taxi fares need to take into account the separate interests of the owners of taxis, as well as the interests of drivers and of the travelling public.
If fares are too low, there is insufficient incentive for the vehicle owners to invest in new taxis. There is also the risk that a shortage of funds will lead to lower standards of vehicle maintenance. Over a period, low fares could lead to a decline in the number of taxis operating and a worsening of the service to the public. If, on the other hand, fares are too high, this may lead to a reduction in the use of taxis by the travelling public, with a consequent falling-off in takings by taxi owners and taxi drivers.
Increases in London taxi fares were approved in July 1975 and December 1976. A further application for a substantial increase in London taxi fares was made a year ago, in July 1977. This application was for an increase of 10p in the initial hiring charge of 30p and for the time and distance rate of 5p for each 450 yards to be doubled after two miles. Because of the combination of a fixed and a variable increase, the total effect of this claim, if granted, would have varied for different journey lengths. The increase for a short journey of half a mile would have been 33 per cent., while the increase for a journey of four miles would have been 60 per cent. The fare increase on the typical two and a half mile journey would have been 25 per cent.
This claim was very carefully considered and the viewpoint of the London taxi trade was listened to sympathetically by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at a meeting last November. It became clear that it was necessary to look more deeply into the basic cost structure of the taxi trade and it was therefore decided that the Price Commission should undertake such a study and that this study should be extended to cover the costs and margins of both taxis and private hire cars throughout Great Britain, to provide a broad picture of the cost structure of the trade as a whole.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection announced in December that the Price Commission would make such an inquiry. On 6th December 1977 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made an order increasing London taxi fares with effect from 22nd December 1977, as an interim measure. This was an increase of 10 per cent. on the metered fares while this report was prepared. Such an increase was the most that could be justified in the circumstances and would enable owners to obtain a reasonable increase to meet rises in operating costs and would provide an increase in drivers' earnings.
I am sure that the representatives of the London taxi trade will have taken the opportunity to place before the Price Commission all the statistical and other information in their possession about costs and margins. I hope that the Price Commission will be able to indicate in its report what proportion of the metered fare and of extras—for additional passengers and baggage—goes towards the maintenance of the vehicle and how much is available for the driver personally. These are basic pieces of information which are necessary if the fare is to be calculated fairly.
I understand that the examination by the Price Commission, which is complicated, has taken longer than was originally expected. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection now expects the Price Commission to submit its report before 1st September—not the 30th, as I think the hon. Member believes. I understand that the report will then be published and that there will be an opportunity for all concerned to submit their views on the conclusions. These views would naturally be taken into account by the Government in any future discussion on proposals for a further increase in London taxi fares. Discussions would need to take account of current policy on pay and prices, but I hope that the report will enable these discussions to be based on more reliable statistical information than we have had in the past.
I recognise the strength of feeling on London taxi fares. However, the Government considered that the claim last year by the trade for increases of up to 60 per cent. in London taxi fares could


not properly have been granted at a time when other members of the working population were being expected to keep their pay increases to 10 per cent.
The continuing fall in the rate of inflation will be of significant benefit to the owners and drivers of taxis in London, as well as to the population at large. The continuing increase in the number of taxis and of drivers in London each year suggests that this is still a flourishing industry. The Government hope that the Price Commission's report will enable future discussions on the appropriate level of taxi fares in London and elsewhere to be based on a full understanding of costs and of margins in the trade.
I believe that it is in the interests of all concerned that owners should be able to maintain their vehicles properly and that drivers should be able to obtain a reasonable level of earnings. At the same time, we need to bear in mind the interests of the travelling public. To balance these various interests is not an easy task, but the report will be of vital importance in helping us to do so.

BROADCASTING

8.0 a.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has the stamina at this hour to turn her attention to a quite different subject which I would prefer to have debated not at a time such as this but in a proper parliamentary debate upon the annual report of the broadcasting authorities. We have pressed for that for a long time, but have never achieved it.
I want to raise two particular matters concerning the organisation and financing of broadcasting. The first is consequent upon the publication last week of the White Paper on the future of broadcasting. The second is consequent upon the fact that the annual licence fee increase for the BBC expired at the turn of the one-year period, which was accepted on both sides as being the duration of its run, over the weekend at the end of July.
Let me first take my hon. Friend into some of the matters raised in the White Paper on broadcasting. I welcome the Government's acceptance of so much of the report of the Annan committee, a

committee upon which I served. I am particularly pleased that they have taken up the four central principles which the committee attempted to enunciate as the major factors in looking ahead over the next 15 years of broadcasting change, namely, the principles of flexibility, diversity, editorial independence and public accountability.
I want to consider how well those various principles have been honoured in the commitments into which the White Paper has entered. The ground plan decised by the Annan committee essentially looked ahead at organic change in telecommunications over the next 15 years. It tried to provide a sort of route map which would take us through some of the changes. Some of the changes will be forced upon us and will be inevitable. Others will come about as a result of consideration of the way in which a properly developed pluralist system of broadcasting should be evolved.
We saw that as involving new institutions, and we tried to enshrine for those institutions an importance principle which has so far been preserved in British broadcasting. It is that separate but competing forms of broadcasting should have separate and therefore guaranteed forms of finance. One can see from the United States why that is necessary. The basis for it is simply that once there are two broadcasting organisations competing for the same forms of finance there is always the possibility, following Gresham's law, that standards will fall. For that reason we held this principle to be at the centre of the greater multiplicity of outlets and the multiplicity of editorial voices that we thought necessary for the future of broadcasting. Do we have all that? How far do we go towards it in the White Paper? That is part of my theme.
First, I deal with the BBC. I was a little surprised by the proposals in paragraph 5 of the White Paper concerning the insertion of new boards of management for the BBC. The White Paper suggests that these should be appointees of the Home Office. They have been much attacked and derided in press comment recently. There is at the heart of the proposal, which has emerged from the Cabinet and the Home Office, a misunderstanding of the direction and therefore the thrust of the logic of the Annan arguments. That is as true if we consider


the arguments of the majority of the members of the Annan committee, who finally opted against the splitting of the BBC, or the logic of the minority, of whom I was one, who preferred to split that organisation into two separate corporations.
I think we all felt that the BBC was unwieldy, was top heavy, was on the way to becoming a kind of over-mighty subject too concerned with its own territorial aggrandisement within broadcasting, and with its board of governors within recent years perhaps too involved with day-to-day management, not sufficiently detached and able to take a view of the general public interest in broadcasting which is, of course, required of such a body.
The minority view on the Annan committee was that the logical answer to this was to have two separate corporations, in that the radio and television sides of the BBC had developed separately—if we were going about this from scratch, no one would have thought of putting them together—and that it would help the editorial diversity of British broadcasting to have two separate public corporations, both financed by the licence fee, to cover the national instruments of broadcasting.
We valued very highly the issue of editorial independence, and this is why in some ways the proposals in the White Paper are something of a curiosity. Critics of the present structure of the BBC—I shall quote only one—have mentioned that the great broadcasting organisations of this country form
a kind of unelected double parliament making decisions on behalf of the entire society over the whole professional world of broadcasting; they can decide what resources to assign to drama, or to politics, or to competitive sport. They decide to what extent the scheduling of their organisations shall be competitive, to what extent the broadcasters are to aim at majority or minority audiences.
Those powers are very great and they are vested in very few people within the BBC. If there is to be a single policy for the coverage of news, the arbitration of taste, of documentary interest and all of these matters within the one indivisible corporation, clearly there are problems in such a concentration of power, because the concentration of power involves a unity of purpose.
Sir Charles Curran, the last director-general of the BBC, said precisely that in one of his speeches. He said:

In a single organisation like the BBC there must therefore be a single approach to these matters.
He was talking of the question of news coverage.
Nature abhors a vacuum and a unified organisation abhors inconsistency.
Yet, if we were to have a proper diversity of opinion and viewpoint in the kind of plural broadcasting system that we envisage for the future, we believed that it was necessary to have perhaps some decentralisation of editorial control. That, I think, is a fairly praiseworthy objective. It was rejected by the majority of the members of the Annan committee, who settled for administrative reform by exhortation within the BBC, and—with two dissentient voices, of course—we all suggested that local radio at least should be separated from the BBC and allowed to go its own way under a new authority charged with the development of local radio as its prime concern. That would have put a term to and set down some boundaries to the expansion of the BBC into new fields.
The White Paper has not gone for any of this. It has made a gesture to show that it follows the logic of Annan. It is a gesture which is tentatively in the direction of three broadcasting corporations rather than one, because it suggests that there should now be boards of management for radio, for the external services and for television, but with the same director-general sitting on all three boards and the same main board governors, and this measure towards decentralisation carried out by these new boards of management who are Home Office appointees—a dreaded phrase.
Sir Hugh Carleton Greene, the former director-general of the BBC, lashed out at these proposals in The Observer on Sunday. He said that half the members were to be Home Office-appointed outsiders and added:
So the management of the BBC is to be placed largely in the hands of political appointees. What an opportunity for patronage! Three nice new quangos with seats for retired trade unionists and, in the case of the external services management board, for retired ambassadors and high commissioners who, however distinguished they may be, have spent their lives implementing the policies of the Government of the day—a habit, as I have had occasion to notice, which is hard to shake off.
Sir Hugh, of course, is strongly of the opinion that anything which would


challenge the independence of the BBC is to be regretted. I agree with him in feeling that these proposals are not, as set out in paragraph 49 of the White Paper, likely to increase the editorial independence of the BBC. They are certainly not likely to increase editorial diversity within the BBC because there is still to be one director-general, who will presumably be editor-in-chief in consultation with his chairman, exactly as has happened in recent years.
I think that there is too much protesting, perhaps, over the question of retired trade unionists, quangos and so on. How after all, are the governors of the BBC—the same will probably apply, for that matter, to members of the OBA—appointed at the moment? It is a nice point and somewhat hair-splitting to say that they are appointed by the Queen in Council rather than by the Home Office. These boards usually have retired trade unionists and such people on them. They certainly have very safe people on them. That has always been a consistent element in boards of governors—that they come from the great and the good and from the safest and most respectable elements in society. There is no reason to believe that the new boards of management would be any different.
But what major improvement would be achieved by this change? I doubt whether there would be any. First, if these boards were to be instituted they would be instituted only after painful squeals of protest from the corporation. There would be a feeling abroad that the independence of the BBC was being trifled with. If they came into existence, they would be wrapped around immediately with those subtle and emollient layers of co-ordinating bureaucracy which the BBC is so skilled at spawning on all necessary occasions. They would be lunched and entertained and taken around and in no time at all they would be fairly painlessly absorbed into the digestive system of this great organism.
So I do not think that there would be too much of a gain, and we might pay a heavy price for it if these proposals for boards of management were to go into effect.
What counter-proposals has the BBC put forward? According to The Times

today, the BBC has made some proposals.
BBC proposes alternative plan to White Paper",
it says at the top of a report by Mr. Peter Evans. The report is very long and contains a good deal of judicious information provided by the corporation, but I cannot see much in the way of alternative proposals. We all have reason to ask the corporation, if it is so scared of these boards and concerned to put up an alternative—which suggests that it has addressed itself in a meaningful way to the problem of decentralisation and of its own top-heavy bureaucracy—what precisely its proposals are. There is a good deal of discussion of the opposition to the proposals in this report but few positive counter-proposals.
I do not know where this idea came from. The Annan committee looked at the composition of the boards of the nationalised industries, which are a combination of distinguished outsiders with some business experience and professionals from the industry concerned. The analogy is not exact with the BBC and it is unlikely that the Annan committee could have been prayed in aid as an inspiration for this proposal.
Indeed, one of my colleagues on the committee, Mr. Dipak Nandy, said fairly clearly in The Sunday Times at the weekend that the committee would not itself have made such a proposal. We agonised thoroughly over the question of what to do with the BBC, and because we were divided 10 to six and could not ourselves make up our minds, we presented the Government with two choices —either to divide the BBC in the interests of greater editorial diversity and as one way of getting rid of the layers of coordinating bureaucracy, or to leave well alone but stop its expansion into new media fields. The Government have let it go ahead with new expansion and have made a rather muffed gesture towards the principle of decentralisation.
What representations have the Government received from the BBC and elsewhere and what if anything do they propose as the intervening stage of discussion and consultation before legislation takes effect? We are talking in terms of 1979 for a new charter for the BBC. Essentially, the Government will have to deal with the kind of problems


which the Annan committee tried to face and in a more thoroughgoing way, perhaps, than in paragraph 49 of the White Paper.
I turn briefly to the subject of the licence fee. Given the end of the one-year period after the last increase at the end of July, the BBC has, I understand, made proposals to the Government for a new increase. I should like to know exactly what the proposals are. Is it true, for example, as some newspaper reports suggest, that the proposal is for a £30 colour licence—a blow to be cushioned by the increase coming in three annual elements of £3, rather than one massive increase of £9, which would be very large?
Unlike many people in our party, some 100 of whom have signed an early-day motion suggesting that the licence fee should be abolished and replaced by the ostensibly less painful method of financing from direct taxation, I believe that the licence fee is the best system for financing the BBC. I came to think that, having joined the Annan committee thinking the precise opposite, because in many areas of our national life things are what they appear to be. If the BBC's independence is not in fact all that the BBC claims it to be, because of the negotiations it must continually have with the Home Office and the Treasury, nevertheless the fact that this is seen in the country and perhaps in the world as a linchpin of its independence from Government is an important reason for maintaining the system as it is.
It is one of the cheapest licence fees in Europe and one of the best values for money therefore that any community enjoying a broadcasting service anywhere in the western world could have. The Government must take that into account. It has to be weighed in the balance against the ever-present unpopularity of a poll tax—an unpopularity rising to a crescendo in an election year such as this probably is, when the Government face such an unpopular decision just a few months from a General Election.
We have to address ourselves to two points. First, is the level of licence fee which is sought a proper one? Second, is there any way in which we can break back front the unfortunate habit of annual review, annual increase, which is now to

some extent tying down the independence of the BBC?
Even those such as myself who are critical of the bureaucracy, ambitions and sometimes claims to a kind of papal infallibility in broadcasting which the corporation gives itself nevertheless wish to see it strong, healthy and idependent. It will be none of those things unless it has an adequate licence fee income.
It is true that, as we are constantly reminded in letters from our constituents, the licence fee is unpopular. Eyebrows are raised even higher every time an enormous sum is spent on the televising of a prize fight, the buying up of a star personality or, more recently, and I think most unpopular of all, on the expenditure of £4·15 million for the purchase of the film "The Sound of Music". That is an extraordinary sum, about one-tenth of the entire cost of BBC2 for a year, spent on one old film. I find it hard to believe that individual decisions of that kind can always be justified. One reason why I want to see the broadcasting Vote properly debated in Parliament is that matters of this kind, about which the BBC governors should perhaps be asking questions, can also be discussed in the House.
Nevertheless, I believe that we should be considering the extent to which an increase can be granted at the same time as we are telling the corporation that we are not happy about some of its purchases, leading with "The Sound of Music", and with the amount of foreign material involved in those purchases. In today's Financial Times, Mr. Arthur Sandles, who is a fairly careful and scrupulous critic of television, has an article about the amount of bought-in material from the United States which is on television at present. He said:
Last Saturday evening, surely the primest of all prime times, BBCI, the major channel of an organisation which is about to seek a one-third rise in its annual licence fee, started its peak programmes with Wonder Woman (US import), followed by an old (American) film and ending with Kojak (a US cop). Squeezed into this stars and stripes evening was one UK-made programme—an Australian comic hosting a seaside variety show.
It is true that on the other side things are not much better. "The Incredible Hulk" has risen to fourth place in the ratings, doing wonders for ITV and even better than in his native country, the United States. Only Miss Esther


Rantzen seems able to squeeze "The Incredible Hulk" out of the ratings at present.
Those programmes have large audiences. That is why the major television channels are competing to buy them. But when public service revenue is involved some questions should be asked, and I think that this is the proper place to ask them.
Having raised all these doubts, and discussed the degree to which many of my hon. Friends feel that the licence fee should be replaced altogether, I go on to assert that it should remain and that we should put it back on at least a triennial rather than an annual footing. If it is true that the BBC has proposed an increase in the licence fee to be phased over three annual stages, that is a step in the right direction.
It is an impossible burden for an organisation which is constantly having to distance itself from Governments and to preserve its independence if it is having to go cap in hand to the Treasury and the Home Office every nine or 10 months to discuss the next annual increment for which it must ask. The corporation is not always as straightforward as it should be in setting out precisely why it needs the money and where it will spend it. But I believe that on this occasion the increase is probably justified, and that once the House has been told, as I hope my hon. Friend will tell us today, precisely what is involved in the request we should return to a triennial system.
I want now to look at the two other elements in the White Paper which involve Government decisions about financing and to some degree new organisations. I am particularly pleased that the Government accepted the line of argument set out by the Annan committee in a unanimous recommendation that we should move towards an open broadcasting authority. As the White Paper discusses fairly early legislation, when can the initial programme board of the OBA be set up? In paragraph 18 of the White Paper, discussing the OBA, the Government suggest that the appointment of the members will be made by the Home Secretary and that these will be
people with original ideas and the ability to put them into practice".

I should hope so. I remind my hon. Friend that this is a channel which, even if it does not go on the air until mid-1980, will need a small nucleus of people planning the way very early on in which it should go about the commissioning of programmes. This is because it is a quite different kind of operation. This is a channel which has to live off the land very largely. It will not build itself an immense territorial empire of television studios. It will not have large numbers of people working directly for it or in its administration.
The job of deciding how the authority goes about commissioning material and hiring studios and arranging that transmitters be built requires one small but early and crucial decision to be taken. That is the decision to set up the OBA board and, more importantly, the programme commissioning body. It is no good saying that this must wait until some time far into the next Parliament I should like to have from my hon. Friend a commitment that it will be in the next Gracious Speech or in the first year of legislation of a new Parliament if we have an election first.
In the White Paper there was one departure from the proposals of the Annan committee as regards the organisation of the OBA. The White Paper suggested that the OBA must have a news service. It says:
It is also desirable that the fourth channel should develop a distinctive news service, although news gathering is an expensive operation.
As my small son says, "You can say that again." News gathering is a very expensive operation. That was one reason why the Annan committee decided that it was the kind of financial charge that we could not put upon the OBA, certainly not in its early days. We envisaged—and I think that most people thought that we were joking—that news coverage on the OBA would be confined to an announcer coming on occasionally and saying "It you want to watch the news please switch over to the BBC nine o'clock news, or News at Ten" or whatever. We did not see it as having a complete news empire all of its own.
Can my hon. Friend tell us whether the OBA is to have that news service set up entirely out of the launching aid or seed money—call it what one will—which


the Government are to provide by way of finance? On the question of finance for the OBA, I remind my hon. Friend that it was an absolutely central principle in the Annan recommendations that the separate broadcasting outlets should have separate sources of finance. There is a problem here. Mr. Dipak Nandy made this criticism fairly strongly in The Sunday Times last weekend. The problem is that, as the OBA is proposed to be set up, it is left competing, on the one hand, for spot advertising revenue with ITV and, on the other, for public revenue with the BBC.
It is one thing to have grants in aid which are specifically geared to some of the programmes that are going out, educational programmes in particular. That is something which is established already, from the Open University programmes, in the relationship between the DES and the BBC. We would expect to see that continued and extended with the OBA. I wonder about the other matters of finance, particularly the presence of spot advertising.
I want to ask my hon. Friend about one part in the White Paper which discusses the question of who will sell the advertisements on the OBA and what the relationship with the independent companies will be. This is dealt with in paras 22 to 24 of the White Paper. Para 22 says:
The OBA will also be empowered to negotiate contracts under which, in return for the payment of a rental, its regular programme makers"—
it does not say who they are—
would have the right to sell advertising time during the programmes they supply and an understanding about how their programmes would be scheduled.
Para 23 says:
The ITV companies have the capacity to expand their production on programmes and the organisational arrangements for selling advertising time".
It goes on to say how much the OBA will have to rely on the companies in the earlier years.
Para 24 says:
There will in any case need to be discussions about the question of scheduling and the OBA may wish to consider with the IBA the possibility of some complementary scheduling between the ITV channel and the fourth channel

I hope that my hon. Friend sees what I am getting at here. If, as appears possible from this, the ITV companies are to be told that they can put their programmes en bloc on this channel, bringing their advertising with them, making their own arrangements for selling the advertising time involved—the spot advertising time—there would be either a complementary service, which in no time at all would be an adjunct of ITV—what would then become ITV1—or we should have, which is almost an impossibility, the ITV companies selling different sorts of advertising in competition against themselves, which I do not think they want to do.
I should like to hear from my hon. Friend whether it is envisaged, as I believed was generally accepted, that the OBA itself should be the seller of advertising time for this channel. In this respect at least, and for this new authority, the Annan committee harked back to what I believe was recommendation 43 of the Pilkington committee, which suggested the reforming of the then ITA by allowing it to sell advertising time, so that we would no longer get, within that authority, the dichotomy between the programme companies which were at the same time makers of programmes and sellers of advertising time. That latter function would have devolved to the ITA.
That recommendation was never accepted by the Government of the day, but we envisaged that the OBA would be the seller of such advertising as appeared on the fourth channel. There seems to be a loophole here which could lead very easily, if one follows these odd throwaway passages in paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 of the White Paper, in the direction of a kind of ITV2 by the back door, with complementary scheduling, the selling of advertising by the companies, and increased dependence, which would be inevitably in peak time, upon the companies and their products of the companies, probably acting in unison. I should like to have a comment from my hon. Friend about that.
My last point is about local radio. I am glad that there is at least an acceptance of the community element in local radio and a rather vague criticism of the lack of that community element in many of our local radio stations, although the


White Paper here capitulated to skilful lobbying, to which I pay tribute, from the interests in the maintenance of the existing system, which has gone on doubling up local radio stations in the BBC, which are essentially a kind of system of miniature "Broadcasting Houses", and the largest and most profitable commercial systems in the larger conurbations.
The Home Office says that it is to have a working party which is to oversee the future development. Something that appalled us when we came to look at local radio was that in this cheap, exciting and flexible local medium, Britain, which has led the world in so many forms of broadcasting, was woefully behind. We are very far behind other countries in the ingenuity and variety of our local radio stations.
It was essential to the pluralist concept of Annan that we wanted to see different kinds of local radio. We thought that a local radio authority—a local broadcasting authority—was necessary to bring them about. The Government have retreated from that because they are terrified of being accused of setting up another bureaucracy, or another quango, or whatever, and that has left us with this notional, disguised OBA in the form of a Home Office working party—one step better, I suppose, than Home Office appointees is to have Home Office employees dealing with this matter.
Will this Home Office working party be able not only to arbitrate upon the national priorities in the setting up of new stations so that we do not just have the old duopoly going on, two by two, through the larger population centres? Will it also be able to make recommendations for the insertion of new kinds of radio? Some hon. Members on both sides are interested in the provision of community services of a new kind whereby the people of a given city or community, or perhaps even of an ethnic or religious interest, would be able to own shares in and control their own local radio station. That is one possibility. The idea of non-profit-making trusts in other areas was floated by the Annan committee.
To all these things the White Paper doffs its cap; it does no more. Will the Home Office working party be able to

consider these matters as well as setting up a national frequency plan and matters of that kind?
The conclusion of raising matters of this kind so early or late in the day—with the usual rapt attention from the usual packed House—is the overall impression that people outside get that we are not too interested in broadcasting or in communications, and the issues of control, accountability and access which go with them. I believe that that is wrong. There is more interest in the House, and I should like my hon. Friend to say whether the Government, who have committed themselves in the White Paper to preparing all the annual reports of the broadcasting authorities by the spring of each year, will also see their way to committing themselves to a proper annual debate here in Parliament on all those broadcasting reports.

8.35 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): I am sure that, given the opportunity, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) would be able to take part in a weekly debate on broadcasting and make a different speech each week. I realise that he has enormous experience and knowledge of this subject, and everything he said has been carefully noted. I am sure that he will be taking an active part in the public and parliamentary debate on the White Paper.
My hon. Friend's views are very valuable, and his work on the Annan committee is greatly appreciated. I therefore shall not be able to give him an exact answer to all his questions now, because the White Paper has only just come out. There will, as I said, be public and parliamentary debate on the White Paper, when all views will be carefully considered, and that will eventually lead to a Bill. As my hon. Friend knows, a lot of water can pass under the bridge between a White Paper and a Bill, and perhaps some of the things in the White Paper are not necessarily what will appear in the Bill. But I assure my hon. Friend that what he said will be taken into consideration. If I do not give him an exact answer now, it is because these things are the subject of debate.
The proposals in the White Paper identify the four requisites for good


broadcasting, which are flexibility, diversity, editorial independence and public accountability. Within this framework, the Government considered what broadcasting organisations were required and broadly concluded that new organisations should not be created unless the existing ones were not suitable for the purposes necessary in the public interest. In this connection I refer to a local broadcasting authority, which my hon. Friend mentioned.
As for the scope of the activities of the Home Office working party, I shall, if I may, look into this, think about what my hon. Friend said and write to him about the proposal. But, here again, this is something which is obviously open to debate in the immediate future.
The Government concluded that it was not necessary to establish a local broadcasting authority as Annan recommended. We consider that local radio has been very successful and that this alone is a presumption against creating a new organisation when we consider the additional expense and bureaucracy that would be involved. The only reason for a new authority would be a clear demonstration that the existing organisations were unsuitable to supervise the future expansion of local radio, and we did not think that that was so. The BBC and IBA will therefore be entrusted with the expansion of local radio.
The Annan committee rejected proposals for a single authority, a council or a commission, to supervise the broadcasting authorities, on the ground that such a body would constitute either a return to monopoly control of broadcasting or a separation of the final responsibility for the content of a broadcasting service. It did, however, propose a public inquiry board for broadcasting, but the Government reject this recommendation. They believe that such a board would all too easily develop into the council or commission which the committee rejected.
I hope it is clear that the Government are to a large extent intent on the existing broadcasting authorities—the BBC and IBA—and that they should continue to provide the services which we are so lucky to have and which compare extremely favourably with any others throughout the world.
The main new body, the Open Broadcasting Authority, will be small. It will not itself make programmes, nor will it engineer the channel or transmit the service. It will obtain the programmes and then exercise overall supervision of the service as a public service conducted in the public interest.
The service management boards which it is proposed to set up to take responsibility for supervising the programme strategy and management of each of the BBC's main services—television, radio and external services—will be new. As my hon. Friend pointed out, paragraph 49 of the White Paper describes this. For the background to this proposal, I think that paragraph 48 sums up the Government's view that there should be separate service management boards by delegating to these boards, as the paragraph says, many of the management functions which now rest with the BBC. The board of governors would be able to concentrate on its supervisory and public accountability role, which will give it a function and personality distinct from that of the service management boards. Each service management board will be responsible to the board of governors collectively for supervising the programme strategy and management of its service.
As regards the members, only about half of the members will be new appointments. Overall, therefore, the Government's proposals will lead to very few additional appointments beyond those which now exist. There will be an increase in ministerial appointments, but ministerial appointments in broadcasting are an essential aspect of the accountability of the broadcasting organisations. Ministers are, of course, accountable to Parliament for the appointments which they make. My hon. Friend's views on retired trade unionists and ambassadors are duly noted.
Part of the Government's aim in the White Paper has been to increase the accountability of the broadcasting organisations. The Government believe that more substantial internal changes are needed to this end in order to increase the diversity of approach to programme making. I feel that this will serve to achieve this end.
The Annan committee saw some advantage in different sources of finance for


the different broadcasting authorities. Unfortunately resources are limited, although the Government understand that general view. The Government have concluded that the BBC should continue to be financed from the revenue of the broadcast-receiving licences. We have noted that the buoyancy of the licence fee system is decreasing, and we shall therefore keep under review whether the licence fee can continue to provide the BBC with an adequate source of income in the long term.
My hon. Friend asked what the BBC was proposing. I note that the chairman, Sir Michael Swann, stated:
In the press I have seen figures of £27, £28 and £30, all quoted in recent months and that is perfectly correct; it is something in that bracket.
We very much want a licence fee settlement that will last us for 3 years and we are going to ask for one.
However, I remind the House that the cost of the BBC is at present running at an annual rate of about £300 million. The levy on the independent television companies at present produces about £60 million a year. This is already paid into the Consolidated Fund, and to use it to provide part of the necessary revenue for the BBC would not reduce the overall claim on public funds. The Government consider that it is impractical at present to increase direct public expenditure by the sums which would be necessary to finance the BBC.
The Government are aware that the BBC's income in past years has been kept buoyant by people first obtaining television sets new and, secondly, by their changing from black and white sets to colour sets, for which a higher licence fee was necessary. The Government have noted that this buoyancy is decreasing now that over 60 per cent. of television licences are for colour reception. It will therefore be necessary to keep under review whether the licence fees can continue to provide the BBC with an adequate source of income in the longer term.
With regard to my hon. Friend's suggestion about a triennial licence fee, many similar suggestions have been put forward to ameliorate the effect of an annual licence fee. Effect could be given to this only if the system were made much more

complex. This would inevitably increase the cost of administering the system and hence the level of the licence fee. The Government therefore agree with the Annan committee that the licence fee should continue to be payable annually.
I remind the House that 25p television licence savings stamps are obtainable at all post offices, and these provide a way of saving for the licence fee. I believe that these stamps, which are already widely used, are the most sensible way of people providing for the need to meet the cost of their television licences.
The Government will expect the OBA to look to advertising to provide an important and increasing source of its finance. The Annan committee had in mind in particular block advertising and sponsorship. These by themselves might well not provide sufficient finance, so the Government propose to permit spot advertising. The Government accept, however, that the OBA will need some Government assistance from them, particularly in the early years, to establish the sort of service envisaged. There will, therefore, be some Government funding of the OBA.
With regard to the setting up of the OBA board, I assure my hon. Friend that this and very many other matters arising from the White Paper are now under discussion. These discussions are in process and will continue. The Home Office is discussing details of the structure and financing of the OBA with the IBA and with independent television companies. The proposals, which build on to the existing structure of broadcasting in this country, are open to public and parliamentary debate, and all views and comment on the proposals will be welcomed. There is no question of the Government dragging their feet on the proposals in the White Paper.
I conclude by saying that our broadcasting services will continue to be financed from advertising and public funds, but the bulk of the latter will be the revenue from television licence fees. We shall continue to discuss the proposals with the existing broadcasting authorities, and as soon as we have the views of individuals and organisations which wish to comment we shall be able to proceed with a Bill.

NURSERY EDUCATION

8.48 a.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I think the House will not require from me reasons for raising a debate on Government policy on nursery education, because the importance of that is universally acknowledged.
I wish to emphasise at the outset that by raising this subject in the House of Commons I do not seek in any way to attempt to detract from the local council responsibility for education, in which I firmly believe. As I always try to tell my constituents, if people do not like local policies and decisions on education they can and should seek remedies locally. Neverthless, the Government, alas, hold the greater part of the purse, and with an increasingly mobile population in a relatively small island it is accepted that the Government should lay down broad guidelines.
Therefore, I seek to obtain from the Under-Secretary of State some idea of the present state of Government policy on nursery education, bearing in mind that the restraints on public expenditure have pushed into the far distance, I am afraid, the oft-repeated aim of the Government to provide nursery education for all children whose parents want it and for, as the Plowden report put it, 90 per cent. of four-year-olds. I hope that we shall hear something of the Government's time scale in respect of that aim, including their medium-term aims on the way to that eventual objective.
There is some confusion and doubt about the role of the various important elements in looking after pre-school education. For instance, I hope that the Under-Secretary will fully confirm that the role of the pre-school playgroup movement that is now sustaining such a large part of pre-school education is regarded as permanent and not merely a prop that might eventually be expected to fall away.
In my constituency of Colne Valley, virtually the whole burden of pre-school education, apart from one or two splendid exceptions by way of nursery classes, is borne by the largely voluntary pre-school playgroup movement. It is important that it should have some long-term assurances on how it will be assisted to meet the

appalling difficulty of rising costs and to meet the danger that rising costs will prove a barrier to less fortunate parents who may be unable to send their children to pre-school playgroups in the absence of formal nursery education. If the preschool groups are to continue to be very well organised and well staffed, it is important that their role should be fully established and confirmed.
That brings me, as the hon. Lady will have expected, to a plea for some further resolution of the almost intolerable division of responsibility in these spheres between the Department of Education and Science, which looks after nursery education, and the Department of Health and Social Security, having overall care of playgroups and other such organisations.
The division may have been understandable as a temporary arrangement when public expenditure was on a different footing, but if we are now to look forward to a long-term continuation of the two major forms of help for the under-fives it is important that the Government should address themselves to achieving a single channel of responsibility, especially at the local level. The dichotomy between the two Departments nationally is reflected, unfortunately, at local level in a similar split of responsibility.
I place on record my view that it is not sufficient to try to overcome the split between different local government departments by having joint advisory committees of the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Social Security. There should be joint executive committees for the work, as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils have urged.
I turn to the third of the four aspects that I wish to draw to the attention of the House—namely, the appalling difficulty at present for those who feel that they have some responsibility for checking on the coverage of provision for the under-fives and the great difficulty for parents in planning their lives and deciding where to live when they cannot be sure what the provision for the under-fives is, or is likely to be, in a particular area. This monitoring of the provision made and planned becomes extremely difficult, even for hon. Members with all


the admirable help of the Library, as long as the responsibility is divided.
For instance, I know that the two metropolitan boroughs of Kirklees and Oldham, of which my constituency forms part, made no bids for Government money for capital spending on nursery education last year. That is established. I know that, as regards the number of nursery education places available, they are neither near the top nor at the bottom of the league. I know that neither Kirk-lees nor Oldham comes anywhere near the distinguished records of towns such as Bradford and Bolton. But when it comes to establishing what total provision there is for getting the rising fives into primary school, providing nursery classes and pre-school playgroups and other assistance, there is great difficulty in making a satisfactory assessment of the position. That is partly the result of this divided ministerial responsibility
I should like to quote from an interesting letter in The Times Educational Supplement of 28th July this year. Jessie Vaughan, writing from Leeds, says:
it is deplorable that there are still many areas which are poorly provided for, while in others there are day nurseries, nursery classes, nursery school and playgroups almost within a stone's throw of each other".
She goes on later to say:
Where more children are being absorbed into nursery schools and classes the tendency is for some play groups to be phased out without any proper review of local situations; or attention given to wishes of parents themselves".
Although Jessie Vaughan does not go on to make the diagnosis, I suspect that some of the points that she makes derive partly from this split of responsibility.
Finally, under the heading of Government policy, I hope that we shall hear from the Minister some indication of how the Government believe that the expected decline in the primary school population will affect the provision of nursery education. Might it mean—it would be a great boon—a probable increase in the number of nursery classes actually held within primary school campuses or premises? That arrangement works very well in parts of Huddersfield. It is, of course, an immense boon to hard-pressed primary school teachers who find children coming to them from pre-school education very much easier to integrate into school life than children who have not

had what I believe every child should have—namely, some pre-school education.

8.58 a.m.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am very glad to have the opportunity, even at this time of the day, to speak on what I regard as the most vital of all the educational spheres.
I believe that Socialist Governments over the years have made two cardinal errors which have vitally affected and, indeed, virtually crippled nursery education. They were not intended to do so, but one indirectly and the other directly are doing so. The first error was the decision of the pre-1970 Socialist Government to raise the school-leaving age instead of spending the money on existing schools or on extending nursery education.
Unlike Labour Members, I believe that educational deprivation begins not at 11 but at four or under. Although this affects all under-fives, it applies especially to children—particularly only children—in remote rural areas and to children from deprived homes, the latter of whom never see a newspaper, let alone a book, before they come to school and who, when they get to school, can barely string a sentence together. These children desperately need help before the statutory age of five, by which time they are obliged to try to keep up with children from more fortunate backgrounds.
It is true that research, especially in the United States, tends to show that the advantage of "early starters" has largely disappeared by the age of seven or eight, but without this earlier start they would scarcely have been in the race at all.
I have visited the schools in my constituency regularly, week after week, for the past 10 years, so I know them all intimately. When I go to a school, I often ask the children in the reception class how many of them have been to a preschool playgroup or to a nursery class. A few hands are raised and a split second later more hands rise. The teacher smiles because the juniors are keeping up with the Joneses. They have not had preschool education, but when the other children put up their hands they do not like to feel that they have been left out—and they should not be left out. Although research in America shows that children lose their early advantage, at least they have not lost it before they have begun.
The second cardinal error was the savage policy contained in circular 14/76, in which Government made clear that
Nursery education building programmes will be reduced.
Even worse, the circular made clear that children below the statutory school age should not be admitted to school unless the expenditure was minimal or, as the circular put it,
the extra call on resources is insignificant.
This meant that local education authorities, such as my own, with a large number of small rural schools with the physical space to admit children, were obliged to confine pre-school admissions to the rising fives and were prevented from admitting the children they dearly wanted to admit, and who wanted to come, because it would have cost between £300,000 and £360,000 to maintain the pupil-teacher ratio at the proper level.
When I took up this matter with the education authority, I was assured that the education committee would reconsider the admissions policy immediately financial resources became available, and I am happy to say that, by economy in other areas, the authority has managed to revert to two admissions a year. It is essential for the Government to cease discouraging the admission of under-fives and to encourage local education authorities to extend this vital nursery edcaation.
I believe that the ideal form of nursery education is not nursery schools but nursery classes attached to existing primary schools, not only because they cost half as much per place but because they prevent a break in the child's education. It is so much easier for a child to go to a school where its brothers and sisters may already be and to move in a smooth flow into the next classes than to have to start in a separate school and have to move on. That is one break too many in the educational pattern.
I should like to pay tribute to the excellent work done in my area, as in so many others, by the pre-school playgroups. They work prodigiously to try to fill the ever-widening gap caused by Government policy, which leads to the unfortunate lack of nursery education in an area such as my own. They should receive every possible help. I beg the Minister to consider seriously this tre-

mendously difficult problem and to see that the Government put resources where they are most desperately needed—at the younger end of the educational age group.

9.5 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I shall respond to the debate.
I am grateful, like the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), to have the chance to say a few things about this subject, which, like both hon. Members, I consider to be of great importance in education.
However, I must say to the hon. Lady that I found some of her remarks more than a little surprising. I am relying on my memory, but it is my recollection, to take the first of her points about how she feels that nursery education has been crippled, that, although the school-leaving age may have been proposed to be raised during the period of office of a Labour Secretary of State, it was actually raised by her right hon. Friend who is now Leader of the Opposition—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: It had gone too far.

Miss Jackson: —when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science. I am not impressed by the hon. Lady's argument that it had gone too far. Nevertheless, it was actually done by that right hon. Lady. Therefore, if it crippled nursery education—with which I am not sure that I would entirely agree—it was certainly not as part of a Socialist policy. I think that the hon. Lady would accept that.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: It certainly was.

Miss Jackson: Well, all right. If the hon. Lady wishes to argue that her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was carrying out Socialist policies when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, that is entirely up to her. But I think that she would find that her right hon. Friend would not entirely agree with her.
I am also a little surprised by the second argument that we have also crippled nursery education by having cut back on the building programme and by


approach to the admission of rising fives. I accept the hon. Lady's contention that it was most undesirable to have to cut back on the nursery education building programme. That is something that I very much regret. I hope that it will not happen in the future. But I must tell the hon. Lady that it seems to me that the strongest possibility of that happening again will be the return of a Government whom she is likely to support, who would be committed to a very substantial reduction of public expenditure, even from the levels that obtain today. The hon. Lady's colleagues have not put forward the argument that this will not happen in education.
However, perhaps we can turn to what is actually happening in the field. I entirely accept the contention of both hon. Members who have spoken that all children can benefit quite substantially from association with other children and from the ability to participate in the development of language and manual control and of all the other things which are of assistance to children and which are provided through nursery education. I equally accept the hon. Member's contention that this is not only desirable but essential for children who come to nursery school or any other educational programme when already at a disadvantage. This is why we have sought throughout our nursery education programme, even at times of difficulty, to give priority to children who are disadvantaged.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley asked me to make clear what our targets still are and what is our aim. Our aim is still to meet, ultimately, the Plowden target of making nursery education available for children aged three and four, whose parents want them to have it. I put it in that way because it is only the Plowden committee that has attempted to define what it thinks the demand is and what it thinks is the level of nursery education which will satisfy parental demand. Obviously this is an estimate. We have seen no better estimate since Plowden. Therefore, we continue to accept that the Plowden target of nursery education for 90 per cent. of four-year-olds and 50 per cent. of three-year-olds, but mostly on a part-time basis, would be needed to satisfy demand.
We are still some way from that target, obviously. In January 1977, which is the latest year for which complete figures are available, about 35 per cent. of the three-year-old and four-year-old age groups were getting nursery education, either in nursery schools or in nursery classes attached to primary schools or reception classes in infant schools. Our present plans provide for the percentage of the three-year old and four-year-old age group receiving such education to rise to almost 50 per cent. by 1982.
I think that we would all wish to see faster progress if this were possible. Certainly I hope that it will be possible. We must, however, recognise that since 1974 we have made quite substantial progress. More than £50 million has been made available in building programmes, and the number of children in nursery education has increased by nearly two-thirds. Therefore, at the date to which I am referring—January 1977–210,000 children were attending nursery schools and classes in England and Wales in addition to the 268,000 children under five in reception classes at infant schools. There has been real progress since we took office, even though one would have wished it to be faster.
The hon. Member for Lancaster asked about the admission of rising fives. There was a difficulty some time ago when we suggested in the rate support grant circular to local authorities that they should look carefully at this policy. That obtained for only a year, and the Government do not now seek to discourage authorities from admitting rising fives.
As the hon. Lady has requested, we are encouraging authorities once again to look at the possibility of admitting such children, and we hope that they will be able to do so under the provisions we have made available through the rate support grant. It is very much a matter for the authorities whether they choose and whether they feel able to make this provision available.
During the period to which the hon. Lady referred, we also said in that circular that we believed that enough money was available for all authorities to open and run new nursery schools that were about to come on stream. Exercising their free choice as they are able to do under the powers given by Parliament,


many local authorities chose, however, not to open such nursery schools or to run such programmes. That makes the point clearly that this is still very much a matter of local choice.
This leads to large variations among authorities in the provision that is made. For example, Manchester is the best authority in the country in this respect. It has little over half of its three- and four-year-olds in nursery education. Some authorities, unfortunately, such as Gloucestershire, have none. That county closed its only nursery school in 1976. The hon. Lady said that Socialist Governments were crippling nursery education, but I must tell her frankly that the list of nursery provision by local authorities, which is available, will show her that all the authorities which do very little in this area are controlled by her party and not by mine.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: On the question of trying to assess the performance of local authorities, is the Under-Secretary able to give an overall figure for Manchester, Gloucestershire or any other significant authority, not only for nursery education, for which the education committee is responsible, but for the total number of children who are getting preschool education or playgroup provision?

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Lady—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is disorderly to have two interventions before a reply.

Miss Jackson: I will give way to the hon. Lady, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the Minister take on board the point that unfortunately, because of the method of assessing rate support grant, particularly the needs element, the amount available for the counties has been savagely slashed while that for the urban areas has been increased? Is she aware that that makes the task of county authorities infinitely more difficult in this respect, as in other ways, than that of the conurbations?

Miss Jackson: To take the hon. Gentleman's point first, I do not have figures for the cases he is querying. A year or so ago I was interested in the provision of pre-school playgroups and whether, as the argument had been put to me, the

authorities were using this sort of provision for not providing nursery education and were therefore not meeting the full need for nursery education as such in their areas. Our researches at that time showed that on the whole the picture was the same for both kinds of provision, that in the authorities where there was good provision of nursery education, classes and so on there was also much encouragement for pre-school playgroups but that equally, in authorities where there was little provision, the lack of provision applied right across the board and there was little encouragement either for voluntary groups. That was the pattern about 18 months ago, and as far as I am aware it has not changed since.
On the rate support grant, I accept the hon. Lady's argument that in the last couple of years the counties have complained strongly about the way in which the rate support grant has been allocated to them. I must point out to her that it is over a much longer period that nursery education has been provided and, therefore, this cannot account for the deficiencies in some authorities. As she will probably be aware—and as she will, I am sure, regret as much as I do—it is not merely a matter of financial difficulties. There are some local authorities which also show a complete lack of will to provide nursery education.
Apart from the example of Gloucestershire, there is another county, of which the hon. Lady may be aware, where the chairman of the education committee refers contemptuously to nursery education as baby-minding on the rates. I am sure that the hon. Lady deplores that attitude as much as I do, but where it exists it is not surprising that nursery education has not been provided. To blame any Government or its rate support grant for such a position is a little dishonest in the case of some of these counties.
The provision of nursery education is proceeding at a steady pace but, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley quite rightly says, this is only part of the way in which services for the under fives can be provided. I entirely take his point that there is a good deal of concern that there should be split responsibility for the services and concern that this will lead to some deficiencies as well as leading


to the fact that it is more difficult to assess exactly what is being provided.
I must say to the hon. Member, however, that, particularly in the last few months and in the last year, the most strenuous efforts have been made between my Department and the Department of Health and Social Security to bring together responsibility for provision and to seek, too, to see that there is not this drifting apart which perhaps people have seemed to identify in the past. For example, as I think the hon. Gentleman will know, a joint circular has been issued this year dealing with the care and the education aspects of services for under-fives and seeking to make the point that there is room for both, and that there is a great need for both to work together and to be provided together. It quoted practical examples of joint provision which is going on in local authorities.
There is close day-to-day working at official level between the Departments and there are regular meetings between the Ministers and the permanent secretaries to discuss these matters. In the joint circular, as well as giving practical examples of what is being done under this framework we have urged local authorities to co-ordinate all their services, both statutory and voluntary, to make the maximum use of resources and to set up joint committees, which will, indeed, lead to executive decisions rather than merely to the giving of advice.
In this context we have particularly emphasised the valuable role that voluntary groups, such as the Pre-School Playgroups Association, play We have certainly tried to emphasise that there is need for the sort of help that they give as well as for nursery education, and that the two are not mutually exclusive. They provide perhaps some slightly different contribution in their different ways, and there is room for—and, indeed, a need for—both. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman on that point.
One further development of which the hon. Gentleman will wish to know is that on the joint interdepartmental consultative committee on the under-fives there have recently been discussions with the representatives of local authority associations. It is intended to have a joint meeting with representatives of the associations and of

voluntary bodies such as the Pre-School Playgroups Association towards the end of this year to try to take further steps along this road of co-operation.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the declining school population. This is one of the many areas where we feel that this is an advantage, as well as creating some difficulties. We have done our best to encourage local authorities to make more radical and full use of space that is becoming available in their schools, and we have quite specifically encouraged them to look at the use of classrooms, for nursery education, for nursery classes, for playgroups or for whatever seems right in the locality and in that area to extend the range of services that is available.
We have encouraged them to do this partly as a means, as the hon. Lady suggested, of extending the provisions for under-fives, and also because it is part of our general approach of wishing to encourage the community use of schools for all groups within the community as a whole.
I hope that I have conveyed to the House, and to the hon. Lady and hon. Gentleman, that we share their aims of a wider and better provision of services for the under-fives and that we hope to make further progress in this direction.

TRANSPORT SUPPLEMENTARY GRANTS

9.20 a.m.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: At this very moment, the West Midlands county council is seeking to increase bus fares in the area under its jurisdiction. I believe that the submission made by the county council last November in its application for transport supplementary grants shows clearly the attitude of the council to the whole question of public transport—and that that attitude is extremely unsatisfactory.
The figures in that application relate to the current year, next year and on to 1983–84, in relation to the proposed financial provision for highway maintenance and the rate contribution to be made to public transport. On highway maintenance the rate contribution in the current year is £3·8 million; next year it will be £6·9 million; by 1983·84 it will be £18·7 million.
The proposed rate contributions for public transport go in exactly the opposite direction. The figure for the current year is £15 million, for next year £13 million and for 1983–84, £5 million. The contrast is absolutely staggering and totally unacceptable to anyone who believes that public transport is a vital service.
Last year my constituents and the rest of the West Midlands population had to tolerate very high bus fare increases—in some cases up to 40 per cent. This year the proposal is rather more modest—for an average increase of 15 per cent.—but as the two lowest fares are intended to remain unchanged, fares for medium and longer distances will be harder hit. So some people again will have to pay very high increases.
It is agreed that inflation at the moment is considerably less than 15 per cent. It is nothing less than sabotage of efforts to contain the inflation rate if the county council can go ahead with increases of this large percentage.
Last year the council forecast that the increase which would then take place would reduce the rate contribution from what would otherwise have been £20 million to £15 million, but I understand that that figure will be challenged and that it is believed that the real figure of rate contribution will turn out to be no more than £121 million at most. So the excessive fares increases made last year have produced a greater increase in revenue than was forecast. Yet the county council proposes this considerable fresh increase, far higher than the rate of inflation. That is completely unsatisfactory.
I have already ascertained by questioning the Secretary of State for Transport that, when the traffic commissioners consider bus fares, they can take social as well as commercial factors into account. Two points need to be considered carefully in cases such as this. One is whether a financial case for an increase can be made out; the other is what social factors are involved.
Even if it is true that a financial case can be made out, the point which then must be decided is whether it is better and more equitable and socially desirable for the increased costs to be met by

passengers at time of use or from the rate contribution. It is by no means necessarily better for the additional costs to be met by passengers at the time of use. This is not even equitable. It shows a very superficial attitude to public transport.
Even those families who have ears expect a public transport service to be available. They expect to have public transport for other members of their families. They expect to have public transport available if their cars break down or are being serviced. They expect the buses to continue running so that they may use them intermittently when it suits them. Yet the county council of the West Midlands apparently thinks that people in that position should make very little contribution to the maintenance of a bus service. This is a totally wrong concept. Public transport is a vital public service, and the community as a whole should contribute to it. If it does not, inevitably the bus service will decline, because there is a factor of diminishing return. If fares go up too much, people find other means of transport where possible for essential journeys, such as travelling to work, or they cease to travel, and ceasing to travel can have serious social consequences.
I suggest that the impact of excessive bus fares does not affect all members of the community equally. Women are very much more adversely affected. In the provinces counts of passengers at any time of day, whether at peak hours or during the remainder of the day, show that the overwhelming number are women. Any increase in fares bears more harshly on women, as does any diminution in service. Women in families with only one wage earner and with toddlers can find themselves virtually housebound because they are unable to afford the price of travel. Socially this is extremely undesirable.
Coventry will be hit even harder than the rest of the West Midlands if this proposed increase in bus fares goes ahead. Coventry has the infamy of being the only district in the West Midlands which does not take advantage of a concessionary fare system for disabled people. It means that disabled people in Coventry will be affected fully by any fares increase. It means that for my constituents the proposals are even more serious than they are for people in the rest of the West Midlands.
We are also disadvantaged because the intention is to discontinue the present system whereby books of tickets may be purchased at a discount for future journeys. I do not labour that point. It is a detailed and technical one, and it may be that there are sound technical reasons for the discontinuance of this practice. But this means that an additional increase will be borne by Coventry which will not be borne by the rest of the West Midlands. That is why I felt compelled to raise this matter today tinder the transport supplementary grants provision of this Bill.
I hope that my hon. Friend will give me an assurance that the Government share my view that public transport is an essential service and will say that they are giving no aid or encouragement—still less applying pressure—to the West Midlands county council to undertake any increases, particularly increases of this high order.
I hope that my hon. Friend can give me these assurances. If he cannot, that news will be received with great disappointment and discouragement in the West Midlands. If he can give me these assurances, it will be welcome as a further factor which will be used to discourage the West Midlands authority, even at this late date, from pressing forward with its proposals.
It is commonly thought that the West Midlands is an area of high wages. I have before me figures disproving this completely. For the West Midlands high wages are, unfortunately, features of past decades. At present, if we compare average earnings in the West Midlands with those in the metropolitan county of South Yorkshire we find that the West Midlands metropolitan county is no less than £2 behind South Yorkshire for adult manual males, according to the latest available figures, published in March of this year in the new earnings survey, broken down by region.
However, as my hon. Friend will be aware, South Yorkshire is an outstanding example of an authority which has managed to maintain its fares at a reasonable level. Doing that has led to the maintenance of its service and to approval of its operations by the local community. In every way it is a successful example of public transport and public enterprise.
South Yorkshire people, with their wages higher than those of my constituents, have also the advantage of this good transport system. I hope that my hon. Friend can bring himself to urge the West Midlands to emulate the example of South Yorkshire in keeping fares down. I know that at one stage the Government felt that this was a dangerous policy. I hope that now the proof of the pudding has been found in the eating and that South Yorkshire is seen as a good and successful authority, working to the benefit of its people.
I trust that the traffic commissioners, when they consider this matter, will give full weight to the fact that transport is a vital service. They must realise that people depend upon public transport for their social life and even for an extension of their family life, by way of visiting relatives. An impoverishment in public transport as a result of high fares and reduced services is an impoverishment in the life of the community which should be unacceptable in 1978.
I hope that my hon. Friend can give me the assurances I seek.

9.34 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) has been able to raise this subject—particularly at this hour rather than somewhat earlier this morning. It is, whatever time of day we discuss it, an important subject which plays a large part in people's lives.
I agree with my hon. Friend that a high proportion of women with families use buses. The sort of fare increases which have been made in recent years have fallen particularly hard on them, especially in a period of pay restraint. So I fully agree with what my hon. Friend has said in that respect. I can give her the assurance that we share her view about the importance of public transport and that it is an essential service.
We have been so worried about the continuing rise in bus fares that we have reversed our policy. The policy put forward before we published the White Paper on transport last summer was that support for buses should decline. We have reversed that. We are now seeking to


maintain bus revenue support. The total amount of bus revenue support is running at about £150 million a year, and we intend to maintain that, taking the country as a whole.
If we had gone on with the previous policy, metropolitan counties would have been down to having £22·5 million only in 1980–81, whereas they will be able to spend up to £77·5 million under the policy, we are now pursuing—the policy, taking the country as a whole, of broadly continuing support for buses at the same level as today.
We do not accept that this policy can be used as a justification for massive fare increases. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there was a substantial increase in bus fares in the West Midlands area last summer. This has been followed by an application for further increases—up to 25 per cent. but averaging 15 per cent.—in this current month.
The West Midlands county council is pursuing a policy of reducing support for buses. It has cut its support from £13·4 million last year to £12·2 million this year, and my hon. Friend indicated that support for other aspects of transport was going in the other direction. That is a matter for the West Midlands county council, but it is its own choice. We have made it plain to the council—though far from putting any pressure on it—that we regard it as important that it should meet its obligations without resort to fare increases above the rate of inflation.
It is inevitable that there will be some increases, given the general increase in prices and the increase in wages. Costs will go up to some extent, inevitably leading to some increase. Nevertheless, we have tried to adopt a policy over the country as a whole which will mean that, with good housekeeping and an imaginative approach to scheduling, it should be possible to avoid excessive increases.
I noted from what my hon. Friend said that the situation bears particularly hard on Coventry, because the city has had since 1968—it was introduced by the corporation's own bus undertaking and subsequently retained by the passenger transport executive—a system of multi-journey tickets, in effect, a general discount facility and not a concessionary scheme as such, which helped the population generally. I understand that that is

now being withdrawn, which is particularly hard to bear when one is having to face two successive substantial fare increases as well. The withdrawal of that facility as well as the general fare increases will, of course, be subject to the traffic commissioners. The council will have to get over that hurdle.
On the final point raised by hon. Friend, I make an appeal to the council because, as she said, Coventry is the only authority in the West Midlands which does not provide concessionary travel for disabled people. As she knows, a local authority has the power to provide concessionary fares for the elderly, the blind and the disabled. The decision whether to use that power is for local authorities.
But we issued a circular at the beginning of this year indicating our view of the policy which should be pursued by local authorities. We have made it plain that we think that at least there should be half fare for all these three categories, and in particular that there should be additional facilities for disabled people because they, unlike elderly people, will, in many instances, be trying to get to work and therefore they need half-fare facilities not just at off-peak times, which is the general rule, but at peak periods. Equally, they may need to have with them their invalid chair, and we urge local authorities to provide for such chairs to be carried free on buses. In addition, disabled people may need to be accompanied, particularly on longer journeys, and we ask local authorities to look sympathetically at that problem. We have asked local authorities to consider all those matters relating to disabled people, and I urge the West Midlands to look at this most carefully because Coventry appears to be deficient in this respect.
I should add that we have made the money available through the rate support grant for full support for disabled people, just as we have for elderly and blind people. In fact, we are making available an extra £31 million over the whole country, and it is important that we get a proper scheme which is universal in its application. If that happens, we can get rid of the complaint that there is one scheme in one area but people just over the boundary in another authority cannot benefit from it, though they see their


friends benefiting. We attach great importance to this. We have made the money available to the local authorities, and we have urged them, and I urge the West Midlands, to iron out this particularly bad anomaly.
Those are the three points which my hon. Friend raised on this very important matter of bus policy in general. At the end of the day it is for the West Midlands to decide its own policies, but I have made plain the Government's view on these matters.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (ACCOUNTING PRACTICE)

9.42 a.m.

Mr. Michael Neubert: In April of last year the price of gas was increased by 10 per cent., against the wishes of the British Gas Corporation, and certainly against the wishes of British gas users. In order that that should come about it was also necessary for the price code to be waived by the intervention of the Secretary of State in a way that, until that time, had had no precedent.
The reason for that unusual decision was a significant straw in the wind, because the purpose of gas being increased in price in this way was to improve the industry's own self-financing ratio and enable it to pay its debts faster, but, more importantly, to reduce the Government's excessive borrowing requirement as a condition of continued International Monetary Fund support. So we had for the first time an increase in the price of a nationalised industry's services being sanctioned within the provisions of the then price code to reduce the Government's own borrowing requirements.
That being so, it was no surprise that when, in July 1977, Professor Carter of Lancaster University came to review the operations of the Post Office, he included in his report, which was published last year, para. 13.25 where he said:
With the Government anxious for the Business to achieve a high self-financing ratio to reduce the PSBR and with the Telecommunications Business itself anxious to achieve a high self-financing ratio in order to be more independent of Government intervention there is every reason to fear that the public will be overcharged.

It is that concern which leads me to raise the subject of the profits of public monopolies in the debate this morning.
It is quite clear that we have to be a little more sophisticated in our attitude to nationalised industries than we have been in the past. Previously, it was the practice to regard them as deficient, as often making a loss, being a drag on the national economy and something we had to accept on sufferance. It may be that there is an easy political point to be made, that now that some nationalised industries are making profits it is no time for those who were deploring their losses to be complaining. But that would be facile, because one has to make a distinction between those nationalised industries operating in a declining market, such as British Steel and British Rail, and those industries which have a substantial, if not exclusive, monopoly in central growth sectors, particularly energy and communications.
As an illustration of a trend which is developing, and which was pre-notified by that unnecessary increase in the price of gas and Professor Carter's warning I intend to cite the industries providing gas and electricity and the Post Office providing postal and telecommunication services. Again, it was within the auspices of the Price Commission that a warning came of the new practice. In a report on the South of Scotland Electricity Board, the Price Commission revealed:
Nationalised industries are overcharging consumers by hundreds of thousands of pounds every year".
The Commission criticised the accounting methods used in the public sector, described these methods as "irrelevant" and as having led that particular small board in Scotland to overcharge by 4 per cent. The Commission went on to say that
this calculation is not exclusive to the SSEB and the commission's comments therefore could well be relevant to other nationalised industries.
According to the Commission's calculations the South of Scotland Electricity Board, was "overproviding" in the current year by nearly £18 million. Quite rightly, the figures used to achieve that figure are described by the Commission as "arbitrary."
Unfortunately, although the Price Commission might be thought to be in existence solely to restrain excessive and unwarranted price increases, it reveals in this case that it was unable to recommend any restriction on the price increase sought because of the present rules. As a result, the consumer was not protected by this device. That was a relatively small instance of the new Government practice in relation to nationalised industries.
We now come to the more spectacular annual results which have just been declared by other industries in public ownership. First, British Gas has had a tremendously successful year by any standards. It is important to realise that this is not necessarily a surprise, because if one accepts that an industry has a monopoly and that it is able to provide a service which is in increasing demand it can only be gross ineptitude or, alternatively, deliberate policy which brings about its failing to make an adequate profit on its operations.
In the year to 31st March last, British Gas made a profit for the record of £180 million. I say particularly "for the record", because as a result of adjustment to the accounts by the accounting practices adopted, this conceals the fact—I say "conceal" in the sense that it will not be immediately apparent, although I am not suggesting that the figures are not available in the published documents for those who understand them—that the profit without current cost accounting would have been £564 million. That begins to put some estimate on the success which British Gas has had in exploiting its monopoly position.
Using those same techniques, in the year 1976–77 the profits were scaled down from £362 million to £32 million. This can be justified on grounds of inflation, but it is the arbitrary nature of this practice to which I am drawing attention this morning, because if such a practice were to emerge in private industry and it were to be so blatant in the charge it made in the reported results there would no doubt be considerable indignation and concern. Because it is a public industry, there should be equal concern about what is being done.
Turning to the Post Office, which was for so many years a Cinderella operation,

again highly successful results are being reported. The total profits for the year just concluded are reported at £367·7 million, an increase of £76·4 million on the previous year. It will be remembered that the Price Commission felt it necessary last year, under the provisions of the previous price code, to require the Post Office to refund £100 million or so of its profits to its consumers. This took place in the autumn of last year, when there was a flat £7 rebate. That, again, was an arbitrary form of refund, but, as I shall contend, it was an arbitrary profit being refunded at that time.
Now that the price code provisions have been relaxed and industries are able to make greater profits, the Post Office—a publicly owned industry—is one of the first to take advantage of that. Its profits, successful as they are and large in scale as they are, are as nothing by comparison with what they would have been if these new accounting practices had not been introduced into this publicly owned industry. The profit of the Post Office of £368 million before supplementary depreciation would have been £718 million. Again, that is an astonishing change in practice between what otherwise might have been reported as the profits and what is being presented today as the profits after allowance in this way for inflation.
I am not arguing that profits should not be adjusted for inflation. I am saying that public industries are being allowed to depreciate in ways which are both arbitrary and different one from another to achieve results which might not be acceptable given the present failure to achieve any agreed standard of accounting.
The Government's attitude seems to he somewhat ambiguous. When they published their White Paper on the nationalised industries at the beginning of April of this year, I tabled a Question to the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection asking him
in what way financial targets for return on capital in nationalised industries differ from similar targets in private industry; what special reasons necessitated his exchange of correspondence … with the Chairman of the Price Commission on this subject; and whether the written undertakings secured from the latter will discriminate to the advantage of the State industries contrary to the provisions of the Price Commission Act 1977.


The answer was long and involved. In the course of it the Minister said:
The White Paper … makes it clear that the targets will reflect the need for the industries to earn the returns consistent with the opportunity cost of capital, and will encourage the industries to act commercially but not to abuse their monopoly power. By contrast with normal practice in private industry, these targets will not therefore be set to maximise profits."—[Official Report, 17th April 1978; Vol. 948, c. 49.]
I emphasise the words
these targets will not therefore be set to maximise profits.
Yet the letter to the chairman of the Price Commission from the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection specifically added that he would be grateful if the chairman would consult him if there were any likelihood that the Commission would be suggesting that a particular financial target was set too high. The chairman of the Price Commission gave that undertaking. In other words, the implication is that there is a danger of publicly owned industries being set too high a financial target beyond that which could be justified for private industry in the terms of the Price Commission's remit. I have no doubt that the chairman of the Price Commission felt obliged to consult the Secretary of State before publishing his report on the South of Scotland Electricity Board. The Commission reported that the profits were by its standards excessive, although, as I have explained, it could do nothing about that.
There is the danger to the British taxpayer that if public industries are able to maximise their profits as I have suggested, and to conceal the extent to which they are doing so by arbitrary jumps in accounting adjustments, they will not achieve the minimisation of costs that should be a prevailing and priority consideration in any running of a public industry.
That is the setting against which the issue is raised. In summary, there are four factors to be considered. First, there are the profits, diminished substantially by depreciation provisions. If that had been done in private industry—for example, by a multinational corporation—there would have been an outcry, especially from the Left. However, the silence on these matters is ringing in the eardrums.
As a sop to the undoubted sense of injustice that will be aroused by these large profits after years of either modest profits or even losses, all the industries that I have cited have made some concession to the public by announcing that prices will be held or kept to a reasonable level.
I quote from the leaders of the industries concerned so as to give the flavour of the declarations. On 18th July the chairman of the Electricity Council, Sir Francis Tombs, said:
It is with particular pleasure that I am able to let you know some of the details of a new tariff that we intend to introduce from October 1st this year. After years of being forced to announce price increases we can now anounce a price reduction.
Cheers from the public, no doubt.
Similarly, British Gas, in its summarised report of its year's activity, had to say:
The year's best news for customers was the announcement by British Gas that gas tariffs would stay unchanged at least until April 1979, so long as there is no major increase in the rate of inflation. This has helped to keep down the cost of living.
The new chairman of the Post Office, Sir William Barlow, after his reported profit of £368 million, and was able to say:
Prices are to be held down until at least the end of the year, and a further provision has been made to hold telephone charges to 5 per cent. below inflation rate for the next five years.
Sir William said:
This will mean that despite the pressure of inflation, postal prices will not have risen for 18 months and telecommunications prices for over three years.
In the face of that seemingly welcome news it may be thought churlish and carping of me to object. All the statements beg the question what the prices were when they were last increased. As I have indicated, British Gas had its prices increased by 10 per cent. last April without its wishing it, so it already has a surplus over its original budgeted prices to cope with inflation over the past year. I am sure that it will be agreed by everybody that the Post Office substantially and excessively increased its telecommunications prices in October 1975 so that it is able to coast along at present prices for a little longer. That is because it went so far over the mark in 1975, causing an increase in the retail price index and


an unnecessary rise in the cost of living at a time when it was too high anyway.
To add to the summary of events, the Electricity Council, as opposed to the smaller Scottish board, was able to depreciate its reported profits from £293 million before the supplementary depreciation to £133 million. The Electricity Council has increased its prices substantially in recent years and, largely as a result of Government policy, is dependent on coal as the source of generation of its energy. That is a matter about which the captive consumer can only be concerned and alarmed.
There is then the question of the audit fees paid by the British taxpayer. All these nationalised industries' accounts are audited by firms of great distinction—luminaries of the profession—but each has felt able to support reports by its industry. For the Electricity Council it is Deloitte Haskins and Sells; for British Gas it is Price Waterhouse & Co., and for the Post Office it is Touche & Ross & Co; and Coopers and Lybrand. All have felt able to support the accounts presented. Yet, although these industries have in common the fact that they are in public ownership, they all use different methods of accounting adjustment and depreciation to achieve the final result.
The fourth factor in summary, which is the most important of all, is service. I give only one illustration. It seems ironic that, at the very time when the Post Office was on the point of announcing its £368 million profit for the year, its staff should be rejecting a publicly expressed request for the reinstatement of Sunday collections and the introduction of cheap rate Christmas cards. If the public is to be met with service in response to the price that it is paying and its help in achieving these profits, surely service should play a large part in what is provided. But that seems not to be so in this instance and in others.
My conclusion is that there is a danger of there being double standards for private and public industries. Certainly double standards are being observed for private and public monopolies. We are told that a new standard of accounting will not be in force until at least 1980. Until that time, I contend that these practices within public industries are both arbitrary and, to a large extent, unjusti-

fied. What is more, they conceal an expansion of Government expenditure at the expense of the captive consumer. The more that publicly owned industries are able to generate their own resources—they already have considerable cash flows—the more they will be able to avoid coming to the Government for money. That will enable the Government in turn to use their own resources, by way of taxes and borrowing, for other purposes.
The growing reserves which are being built up will mean increasing independence for these publicly owned industries. For example, British Gas has increased its reserves from 15 per cent. to 25 per cent. and the Post Office has reserves amounting to about 40 per cent. of its capital. The profits being put to reserves will make these industries increasingly independent. It follows that they will also bring about an increasing lack of accountability both to this House and to the public.
My warning is that the user of nationalised industry supplies and services is in danger of being taken to the cleaners. The sooner the public realises that, the better it will be.

10.4 a.m.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) has performed a signal service by raising this subject. He has put forward a very powerful argument which deserves close study and attention not only in the House but far wider.
The question of the profitability of nationalised industries was raised in the House only last week. The Prime Minister, as reported at column 1794 of the Official Report in answer to a question of mine, conceded that we were getting to a situation where the whole concept of profitability and of accounting, and particularly the policy on depreciation, was leading to total confusion of the true profit pictures in the various nationalised industries.
My hon. Friend referred particularly to the impact of profits on prices to the consumer. I support his conclusions. He has taken a signal interest in these matters. I repeat, his words will repay much further study.
I declare two interests. I am a member of the Select Committee on Nationalised


Industries and it has been part of my interests in recent months to look at the reports and accounts of the nationalised industries. This is an ever-growing list. The Energy Sub-Committee now looks at coal, gas, electricity, oil, shipbuilding and steel. It is becoming a year-round activity and the comparability of accounting as reported to the House is an important matter.
My second interest is as parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Cost and Management Accountants. The Financial Secretary will be aware of the Institute's work because it has been helpful to successive Governments and has been especially concerned in the present debate on current cost accounting where it has shown a much more down-to-earth attitude in trying to put across the notion of effective operating data as opposed to the sometimes more sterile viewpoint expressed in historic accounting. The work of Mr. Hyde in the sub-committtees that operate within the accounting standards committee has been notable in this respect and is relevant to our debate.
I want to refer to two aspects that come out from the work of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and from the advice tendered to the House and the Government by the Institute of Cost and Management Accountants. The first is the real nature of profit. We all welcome a move to profitability in nationalised industries and we want to see a profit that represents a reasonable return on the taxpayers' money and on the massive debts that many nationalised industries have built up previously. Many debts, such as those of the National Coal Board, have been written off in the past. We shall need to see sustained, but fair, profits before we can say that nationalised industries are paying their way in a reasonable balance between their social obligations and their commercial obligations.
We have now reached a situation where, for a variety of reasons, some fortuitous, there is a degree of competition, certainly in the nationalised energy industries, which are the sector that I know best. When we have this competition between electricity, gas, coal and so on, we should have comparability in pricing policy and a relationship between each industry's profits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rom-ford was right to point to the objectionable features of artificially forcing up British Gas's prices. The British Gas profit is inflated by the extent to which prices were put up by more than the corporation wished. It has meant that consumers have had to pay more for gas, and hon. Members must often have been reminded by their constituents that many householders have no option with fuel because they live in houses on great estates where the form of energy is already provided. If they have gas fitted, it is wrong not only that the profitability of the British Gas Corporation has been artificially inflated but that the cost to the consumer has been increased by Government dictat.
There are various ways in which the profits of nationalised industries can be overstated in the reports and accounts, but they can also be affected by the way the level of debt has been dealt with. For example, the British National Oil Corporation has found it possible, by the fortuitous circumstances of the nature of its product, to sell forward oil by setting up a charitable company in the Wilmington, Delaware, called Britoil. Its job is to sell forward the output of BNOC. In doing so, it has substantially written off BNOC's National Loan Fund debt to the Government.
The Financial Secretary must receive criticisms about the rates of interest charged by the NLF and the lack of flexibility of nationalised industries in borrowing money from other sources. Here is a way in which the BNOC has effectively managed to get right round that. It has written off most of its debt by selling its product forward. But in doing so—and this is the burden of the charge, again, today—it has given us another example of a nationalised industry which is not only presenting, as I would argue, a figure that needs the most careful scrutiny in assessing the Corporation's true financial worth and situation, but also it has managed to avoid any real accountability to this place. It is true, though, in fairness to the chairman of the BNOC, that the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, did suggest that he would be willing to answer to a Select Committee of this House on the matter at any time.
However, there is now a whole variety of ways in which profit figures and indebtedness can be altered upwards or downwards quite substantially with apparently no major Government monitoring and relatively no opportunity for real debate in this House.
That brings me to the third matter which is of great importance. That is that it is a scandal that the Government's White Paper on the nationalised industries, Cmnd. 7131, published in March 1978, has not been debated before now. It will be within the memory of all hon. Members that it followed a very long period—over two years, I think—in which we had the NEDO report and submissions to Select Committees and all parts of the House from the nationalised industries. There are many matters which require urgent debate by the House.
In fairness to the Government, I am bound to say that there were one or two useful aspects of the White Paper, and particularly the fact that the Government accepted the recommendation of the NEDO that there should be performance indicators which would amplify the success or otherwise of nationalised industries in a wider context than that of the normal historic accounting. For example, in paragraph 78 of the White Paper the Government refer to the fact that in future they will ask nationalised industries to select a number of key performance indicators, which would include, for example, valid international comparisons, and matters such as labour productivity, standards of service and matters where there could be some apparent comparability between one industry and another. In addition, the Government said, rightly, that there should also be an opportunity to show other performance indicators special and peculiar to their industry.
I am very glad to see that the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve, of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is with us this morning. I think that he will bear out what I am saying on this general question of the way in which these key performance indicators could help the work not only of that Sub-Committee of that Select Committee but of this House as a whole.
Earlier in the White Paper the Government also tried to make another helpful response to the NEDO when they looked at the question of the measurement of results in monitoring in general. That came in paragraphs 48 to 51. In paragraph 48 it was recommended, for example, that the annual report and accounts should include a statement of financial and other criteria and achievement against them. That was, for example, coming back to the age-old question whether there should be a 5 per cent. target return.
Here again we have a whole area in which Government thinking appears to have sunk into limbo. The White Paper requires the most urgent debate. It really is a situation in which the public at large do not know what to think. They do not know what to make of the profit figures. They see prices being jacked up in the case of the British Gas Corporation. They see debts being reduced by ways which apparently are not comparable between one industry and another. They certainly see, as my hon. Friend has said, many opportunities here for operating, in accountancy terms, in ways which would be regarded as unthinkable by Labour Members when talking about private industry.
Therefore, the question that remains in one's mind is what further accountability, both professionally and in parliamentary terms, this House should seek to exercise. For example, the suggestion of audit committees, which the British Steel Corporation intends to adopt, is one that has value. In effect, it stems from ideas put forward in this place.
These are all matters about which the public are right to be worried. If we are not clear as to what are the true profits and debts of our nationalised industries, our consumers will be increasingly resentful towards what they regard as ways of financing the Government through the back door. My final thought is that if we do not address ourselves seriously to this question we are failing to reflect adequately on the question of monopoly, whether public or private. Both have question marks beside them. I oppose public and private monopoly and I welcome the increasing competition in parts of nationalised industries. 'Where there is no competition it


behoves this House to bring the most rigorous scrutiny to such industries. We are clearly failing to do that, and the Government are clearly failing to come forward with constructive proposals.

10.16 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) mentioned that the figures need scrutiny, and that is always true. Any set of accounts whether in the public or private sector needs both scrutiny and interpretation. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) addressed himself to interpretation of nationalised industries' accounts. He was critical of accounting methods. Anyone who has had recent experience with the problems of industry, private and public, will know full well that most people are critical of the accounting methods used by the private and public industries to deal with inflation. We set up the Sandilands committee in order to achieve some agreed resolution of these problems. No one is satisfied with the present state of private and nationalised industry accounts.
We must ask ourselves, therefore, while we await a solution that will commend itself to the accountancy profession as well as to those who have responsibility in these matters, how we interpret the accounts in the meantime. The motive for the debate is based on the large profits in the gas industry and the prices it is charging. The hon. Member for Rom-ford suggested that the public were being overcharged. He accepted that it was easy to make the political point that there were certain industries such as the railways and steel where losses arise because of the running down of those industries. He said that it was easy to make profits in the growth industries such as energy and communications.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for understanding that these matters are complex and that it is not sufficient to denounce the poor profitability of those industries that have the burdens that he described without understanding the nature of those industries. He spoke of the arbitrary effect of inflation. Of course it is arbitrary. If it were not we could have come up with a much simpler solution than that suggested by Sandi-lands, which at present is being looked

at by Morpeth, and without the intervening temporary solution of Hyde.
Since we are in this interim position it is right that I should say something about the problems and targets that we set. The current temporary uncertainty about the way the nationalised industries should present their accounts at a time of inflation is not a simple matter. In future, however, it should not have any real effect on their profits.
In the past prices were rightly determined by accountancy considerations. But the Government's policy, which was set out in the White Paper, is that in those industries with a market position which gives them the opportunity to determine what prices they should charge—as opposed to other industries where the prices are almost completely determined by the market—the key factor is the overall financial target that is set by the Government. That target is a complex amalgam of a number of aims. It is set by reference to such factors as the expected return from the effective management of the assets, by the market prospects of the particular nationalised industry concerned, by the scope that the Government see for improved productivity and efficiency, by the opportunity cost of capital, by PSBR implications, and also by the counter-inflation policy and by social and sectoral objectives.
Altogether, therefore, the pricing decisions—and because of this the profits—mainly reflect economic considerations, to a much wider extent than perhaps the hon. Member for Romford was considering. The role of the accounts is simply to record the effect of these decisions.
We have heard a certain amount of criticism of the level of nationalised industry profits. If I may say so, it has not been clear just what it is that the hon. Gentleman wishes to see. I must say that I felt some sympathy with Sir Derek Ezra who, in a recent letter to The Times, pointed out that an industry was equally liable to abuse if it made big profits, modest profits, or losses. I seem to detect some echo of that criticism, which is rather unfair, in some of the comments that I have heard in recent weeks. He asked what it was that the public expected.
The Government look to a level of real profits which allows the financial targets


which I have described to be achieved. We have seen a steady and very welcome improvement in these industries' results over the last four years. Some of them are now making adequate profits, although I do not believe, in the light of what we have seen over the last four years, that any of them can be said to be making excessive profits, especially when we remember the large scale of some of these businesses and the amounts of capital they employ.
I remind the House that it was, after all, the previous Government who, in connection with their counter inflationary policy, kept prices down and incurred very substantial losses indeed for these industries—and there were subsidies as well. I do not think that we are far off seeing profits that are up to our expectations, but we must remember that the profits of these industries generate funds for their substantial investment requirements. So the profits reduce their need to borrow and keep down the burden on the taxpayer.

Mr. Neubert: As an illustration of the question, will not the Minister agree that under the present policies of British Gas it is likely to wipe out its debt over three years, which is a scale and a pace which would be quite out of place in private industry and would not be acceptable?

Mr. Sheldon: Extrapolations of this kind have never been something that I have accepted readily, and I think that the hon. Gentleman, when he comes to think about it, will not accept them so readily either. What we have seen is one year. What we need to see in the future is achievement of our objectives so that the long-term future of the industry may be assumed. I would welcome this, and I assume he also would do so.
The diversity of accounting practices in all industries poses a commercial problem and, of course, this is true of the nationalised industries as well. The confusion is something about which none of us can be happy. There has been a certain amount of critical comment—some of it unfair, I grant, but some of it justified—and it is certainly the case that

we are in a transitional period when the business and the accounting worlds have not yet made up their mind about how to reflect the consequences of inflation in their published accounts. When there is no right commercial practice to follow, it is hard to blame the nationalised industries for not producing an agreed and uniform solution. Some have kept, of course, to traditional practices. Some have gone the way of the Hyde report, which allowed for three extra factors. It will be remembered that the Sandilands report suggested the use of 22 factors. The enormous complications of this would be impossible, I believe, for industry in both the public and the private sector. The Hyde route, of course, would be a more limited route of allowing for sales, for depreciation and for gearing. There are problems with that, but they are more readily overcome. Some nationalised industries have gone down that route by issuing supplementary statements, while others have applied different forms of inflation accounting to their main accounts. This has been helpful to the interested observer.
The Government have a clear policy, which was stated in the White Paper to which the hon. Member for Arundel referred. When an inflation accounting standard is eventually approved, it will of course apply equally to the nationalised industries, subject to any adjustment which might be needed to meet their special circumstances. I accept that we cannot live long with the present state of affairs and that if the accounting standard on which the Morpeth group is now working were long delayed, we and the industries concerned would need to consider whether there was not a need for greater consistency, possibly a temporary solution for the treatment of inflation in their accounts.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me reaffirm what my colleagues have said on previous occasions—that the Government whole-heartedly support the concept of current cost accounting in the private and public sectors, and that the present confusion must be seen in perspective as a temporary and short-lived phenomenon which will have to be regularised not only for the public but for the private sector.

INDUSTRY ACT ASSISTANCE

10.22 a.m.

Mr. Tom Litterick: I should like to examine the subject of financial assistance to industry under sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) will give the matter his own emphasis; I should like to discuss it with particular reference to the West Midlands economy.
The assistance to the West Midlands under the Act comes principally through section 8. Section 7 applies only to the development areas, as which the West Midlands area is not yet classified. No one has yet recognised that it is as much an economic crisis area as the rest of the country, despite the fact that unemployment is not as high as it is in many other areas. But one of the striking features is not so much the absolute or even the relative level of unemployment as the rate of its growth, which has been faster than that of many other regions, although not of all. For that reason, there has been growing anxiety in the West Midlands that the fate of its economy will be the same as the fate of the older industrialised areas—that is, that it might become a depressed area.
Although it is not regarded as an assisted or development area, much direct Government assistance has been given to the West Midlands economy. Some of the more prominent firms which have benefited are Lucas Industries, which has already received more than £4 million, GEC Machines, which is part of the larger GEC organisation, Accles and Pollock, Stafford Potteris, NVT, Meriden Motorcycles and—most famous of all—Alfred Herbert, Chrysler and Leyland, as well as a significant number of smaller firms.
Although I am sure that the Minister will give us the most up-to-date and precise figure, it seems that the amount funnelled into the West Midlands from the Government during the last five years has been much more than £120 million.
This mechanism of the Industry Act, by which State aid can be made available to the private sector, is an area of policy and strategy where the philosophies of the social democrats on both sides of the

House meet. It would appear to be a shared wisdom. When the social democrats dominated the Tory Party they embarked upon an interventionist strategy of which the Industry Act is a feature. That Act was subsequently amended by the Labour Government. The present Labour Government are dominated by the Labour Party's social democrats. There is some doubt about whether the social democrats still dominate the Tory Party, but with a bit of luck we may never find out.
Despite the apparent generosity of the assistance given to it, the West Midlands economy is still in a state of crisis. Those of us who observe the West Midlands economy at close quarters find the outlook rather less than encouraging. The heart of the matter is fairly simple and is not unfamiliar to those of us who scrutinise the entrails of the British economy as a whole.
In its most recent report, the steering group of the West Midlands Economic Council says that since 1971 a relatively small group of industries has been responsible for the lion's share of job losses in the West Midlands economy. These industries are the car manufacturing and related industries, the metal-based industries and engineering, which are related to the fabrication and assembly of motor vehicles. These industries have lost 70,000 jobs between 1971 and 1975, and those 70,000 jobs represented about 85 per cent. of the total job loss in the West Midlands economy.
In addition, the West Midlands Economic Council cannot see any encouraging potential for job growth in other industries in the West Midlands region. The House will recollect that the basic policy document that the Government used to announce their strategy was the White Paper entitled "The Regeneration of British Industry". It was written in terms of creating new manufacturing industries or rejigging existing ones with different technologies and different structures. That is not quite the same thing as ensuring that such a regenerated economy would be one in which the number of jobs would be larger than before the economy was regenerated. I may have put that in a rather awkward way, but I intended to. We have tended to think too narrowly of regenerating—in physical and


technological terms rather than in employment terms.
We are beginning to discover that by regenerating British Leyland, for example, we would bring about a net job loss of between 12,000 and 25,000, depending upon how far we carry out the transformation of that organisation. That pattern repeats itself in industry after industry. We all know that Alfred Herbert was the subject of restructuring. That industry has shed labour and has gained in technological capability. In future it may shed more labour and still gain in productive potentiality.
As the authors of the report emphasise in chapter after chapter of the document, it would appear that the concentration on existing industries which had hitherto been very successful in the West Midlands and made it prosperous would be a mistake. If we are thinking in terms of employing the people of the West Midlands or creating an economy in which people can live, it certainly is a mistake.
If people cannot work in an economy, there is little possibility that they can live in it either. If the economic system cannot employ its people, it cannot pay them. If they are not being paid for employment, by definition they cannot be customers for whatever is being produced. If there are no customers, there is no reason for the industry to produce anything at all. Having gone full circle, it is obvious that unless we are prepared to put large numbers of people on doles of one kind or another there will be nobody to buy the products of the technologically rejigged West Midlands industries or the newly created ones. The only potential customers would be those abroad. That would put us in the absurd position of making products to sell outside this country while inside we have a half-starved subsistence population.
The trouble is that we still have hang-ups which are part of the primitive revolutionary philosophy of the Bolsheviks—he who does no work shall not be paid. As many people on social security benefits in this country have discovered to their shock, horror and pain, it is often regarded as a crime to be on social security. It is quite widely seen as being parasitic. The general attitude is that a

person who does not work should be penalised. That is a primitive view.
People who live in an economic system of some sophistication must realise that their potential productive power goes far beyond the ability of that system to employ everyone in production. We must recognise the need for a growing service economy, and that applies as much to the West Midlands as it does to the rest of the country.
The strategy that appears to be followed by the existing institutions set up as a result of the Industry Act does not appear to be coherent. Much of the resources of those institutions has gone to organisations which are mature, even decaying—some people may even call them lame ducks—or certainly in trouble. I refer to Alfred Herbert, British Leyland and others. Little attention was paid until recently, when changes were made at the NEB, to the possibility of devoting more careful attention to other productive enterprises which were not in trouble but which needed the stimulus of addiditional capital resources.
So far as I can make out, the investment strategy followed by the NEB has been opportunistic. It does not appear to be a consistent strategy at all. I find it difficult to blame the members of the Board for that. Indeed, the West Midlands Economic Council makes the point that one of the reasons for the difficulties of the West Midlands region is that the source of investment funds for the region lies outside the region in both public and private hands. I am suggesting that knowledge of a region is an important factor in knowing a region's requirements, as is an understanding of a region's potential. Remotely controlled investment is bound to be less satisfactory than investment based on familiarity within an area.
I suggest to the Minister that, based on the precedents of the existence of the northern and north-western offices of the National Enterprise Board, we should now be moving towards the creation of either a West Midlands NEB or a Midlands NEB. I do not doubt that the ability to staff such a board is already in the West Midlands. The Secretary of State for Industry or the chairman of the NEB would not have to look beyond the Midlands for the necessary ability and experience. This would lend strength to the


NEB in its efforts to arrive at a coherent and consistent national investment strategy. I hope that, based on the kind of expertise that can be offered in the West Midlands, there will be a new departure in NEB strategy. It would suggest that the NEB could devote more of its attention to non-manufacturing enterprises, in contrast to the emphasis which has characterised the board's strategy, namely, the emphasis on manufacturing enterprises.
It is my personal opinion, and the opinion of many informed people in the West Midlands, that we must strive in that part of Britain for the development of a new service economy to give more hope than will existing investment strategy in manufacturing. We know that the return on investment in service industries in respect of jobs is very much higher than it is in manufacturing industry, but —and I wish to stress this point—if we do not create something very much like a West Midlands or Midlands NEB, or something on the lines of the Scottish Development Agency we are unlikely to succeed in developing a convincing and effective economic strategy for the West Midlands.

10.45 a.m.

Mr. Max Madden: I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) for joining me in initiating this debate. I find it distressing, having waited nearly 16 hours for this debate, to see that innumerable Members during the night, who did not have the wit or foresight to seek to promote a subject, nevertheless saw fit to participate. They caused this debate to come on very late, which means that a number of other debates will not even take place, although there are many people, both inside the House and outside it, who are most interested in hearing what is said on those subjects.
I wish to join my hon. Friend in drawing attention to public financial assistance —taxpayers' money—going to private industry which, by any standard, is considerable. In a recent parliamentary answer from the Department of Industry, I was told that since 1974 more than £1,338 million had been paid in regional development grants and more than £1,275 million under other sections of the 1972

Industry Act. More than £444 million was paid under section 7 of that Act and more than £813 million under section 8. Taxpayers' money—public money —is underpinning a massive slice of British industry and is assisting firms of every size and type in many areas of the country. The total public subsidy is very much larger and indeed the latest estimates show that about £12 million per day of taxpayers' money is going to private industry.
Although the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) huffs and puffs about the evils of such public support and talks to the gallery about all subsidies and grants doing great harm, we know that companies in his own constituency, and in many other Tory constituencies, are lining up outside the Department of Industry eager for all the support they can get.

Mr. Nick Budgen: rose—

Mr. Madden: They do not protest about all the other subsidies, grants and reliefs they receive. Therefore, we should be vigilant against hypocrisy from Tory politicians and members of firms who support the Tory Party financially with one hand while dipping into the public purse with the other.
There should be no misunderstanding that the prime vehicle for this public support has been the Industry Act 1972, introduced by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) as one of the range of inducements which he introduced in an attempt—largely unsuccessful—to persuade British industrialists to invest in British industry, British products and jobs.
The amount of public financial support since 1974 has been cranked up in the same hope. Although it is clear that several major British companies would be closed today—including Ferranti, British Leyland, Chrysler and Alfred Herbert—with thousands of redundancies, if that public assistance had not been afforded, nobody can be satisfied or complacent about the position.
The Labour movement has always insisted that no public money should be made available without effective public accountability. Before coming to power, we talked in exciting terms about how planning agreements would achieve this


aim. We spoke about how workers, management and Government, in enterprises supported by public money, would enter systematic agreements in which there would be joint agreement on major policy issues, where investment would be channelled, where expansion would occur and where there would be product design and development. All this would take place against an even more exciting backdrop of real industrial democracy. Fresh air, fresh ideas, fresh men would be sucked into manufacturing industry and a new dynamic set off. However, the industrial crisis, rooted in the upsurge of oil prices, rapid increases in commodity prices, unpredictable exchange rates and a substantial fall in world trade had a major industrial impact.
But in a way the fact that we endured that major national and international crisis—from which we have not yet escaped entirely—without achieving many of the objectives of our industrial strategy, is all the more sad. Even now we have only one planning agreement. It is tragic that we are giving more and more public money to private industry without much more effective accountability than we had in 1974. I regret that we are still a long way from transforming the way in which important decisions are taken in many of our companies.
Britain's industrial crisis has shown, and will continue to show, that only with public intervention, public money, public enterprise and public planning can we hope to protect our manufacturing base in the years ahead, thereby creating the wealth which is necessary to support a more exciting leisure society, in which work can be shared out. It will be a society in which our young have a chance of a satisfying job and we do not kill off our older workers because they cannot afford to retire. It will be a society with attractive social policies in which people, with the aid of technology and automation, live in reasonable fulfilment and comfort in a world in which the stark and brutal divisions between rich and the poor are no more.
Public intervention must become the spearhead of our regional policy. It is intolerable that large sums of public money are spent to persuade firms to maintain limited employment in Britain at a time when the same firms are expanding employment abroad. Public

money must be used to maintain employment where the people are. It is unacceptable when people who have lived happily in small communities and want to stay there are forced to leave to search for a reasonable job—or any job at all.
That is what is happening in my constituency and in other parts of West Yorkshire. My constituency has a proud manufacturing tradition. People like to live near their work and they enjoy being near their relatives and friends. Good neighbour policies have been practised in these areas for generations.
Such people do not agree with the economic planners in Leeds who say that in future there should be a limited number of growth points based on the large cities and that my constituency and others like it should become dormitory areas for Leeds and Manchester. Such a policy encourages more and more younger people to leave and that creates more community and social difficulties.
Public financial assistance has an important role to play in stemming such undesirable regional developments, which are the inevitable consequence of free market forces which in future will attract more investment to the most profitable areas of Britain and, increasingly, to the most profitable areas of the Common Market.
The wool textile reorganisation scheme is an example. Under the first scheme £18 million was available and under the second scheme £5 million. Another £15 million is available under the clothing scheme. These schemes have involved modernisation and reorganisation. They have helped the industry to become more competitive. But they have also involved substantial redundancies. Not enough has been done, using public financial assistance, to provide alternative employment in the Yorkshire woollen areas for those who have been made redundant. If planning is about anything it should be about having enough foresight to take account of the redundancies that flow inevitably from such developments.
The effects and benefits of the scheme were discussed in a perceptive article by Victor Keegan in The Guardian on 25th July. He said that one Bradford company, which had taken advantage of the scheme, expected exports to rise to 50


per cent. of turnover by the second half of the year but employment to drop by 42 per cent. as a result of re-equipment.
In the woollen industry employment has dropped from 103,000 in 1968 to about 78,000 between 1975 and 1977. About 90 mills have closed. Hilary Rose, professor of applied social studies at Bradford University, summed up the concern about the future of the North in an article entitled "Bradford: a de-skilled town" in New Society on 20th July. She said:
The distribution side remains profitable, so the message is to get out of production, abandon British factories and import from abroad. Bradford and its fate are not unique. This is the story of many other of our greater and smaller northern cities, thrown up in the floodtide of the first industrial revolution and now left stranded as the tide ebbs. What are the solutions?
In principle, if one listens to the siren voices of the multinationals and the hardnosed economic realists in search of ever greater productivity, it doesn't matter. One could concentrate all production and innovative industry in south east England to operate at high efficiency and leave a welfare desert behind.
She argues for skills to be retained in the North and for new industries to be established, if the new trading estates that are being built in our part of the world are not to be turned into anything better than distribution warehouses at the end of motorway spurs.
She concludes:
If the finance for this new investment has to be at the national level, who is to invest, develop and manage the new technologies? Existing management in industry has proved itself inadequate. Industry's profitability is protected by government purchasing, government consumer policy and both direct and indirect government subsidy. It is not unreasonable to ask what does the state get for its money. The individual who claims welfare benefits in all their complexity is quick to feel the array of controls imposed to make sure he or she is not "scrounging" off the state. But who controls our industries and our public investment in their activities?
Some local economies in the north east may already have declined to a level where massive investment will be needed to regenerate them—Sunderland is one example. Others, like Bradford, wobble on the brink. Is anybody listening in Whitehall?
Many of us are often moved to ask the same question. Confronted with our immense problems and immense opportunities, we know that now is the time for a new industrial era based on bold new

initiatives, sensible and socially responsible planning, more public accountability and involvement, better public and community services, more jobs, more job satisfaction and more compassion and understanding.
This debate is about how we employ our resources. I hope that the Minister will indicate that new responsibilities are emerging from the Department of Industry and, most important, that we are to return to those proposals on which we were elected and which appeal to the mass of working people because they offer hope for the future and effective control over that future.

10.58 a.m.

Mr. Hal Miller: The hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) and Sowerby (Mr. Madden) have done the House a service by raising the matter of grants under sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act. They have done a wider service by revealing to us so clearly the society that they hope to see in these islands. I was particularly interested in the exciting prospect that people should be proud to be on a planned form of social security.
The hon. Members were correct to stress the need for a better underpinning and strategy for Government distribution of grants, particularly under section 8. They mentioned the effect that the strategy has had on the economy of the West Midlands in particular. In the West Midlands we can see all the symptoms of the decline which has affected many other local economies with declining industries.
The whole thrust of Government policy in the West Midlands has been to reinforce the decline, despite the huge amounts of public investment poured in—

Mr. Bugden: Perhaps because of public investment.

Mr. Miller: I do not think that that case has been proven. I am saying that the decline has continued precisely because the grants continue to prop up firms which are having to undergo severe structural change but they militate against new firms coming into the area with a prospect of bringing new blood and new life to the West Midlands.
Thus, not only do we have existing firms prevented from expanding but there is a positive bar on new industries coming into the area.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend comment upon the disgraceful remarks of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), who said that it was hypocrisy for Tories to encourage their constituents to apply for any grants under the Industry Act? Will my hon. Friend confirm that when the loyal Opposition agree to accept the operation of laws with which they do not agree, just as our constituents are obliged to obey laws with which they may not agree, so on occasion they are entitled to take advantage of laws with which they do not agree?

Mr. Miller: I had not intended to delay the House by dissecting the speech of the hon. Member for Sowerby, large parts of which, no doubt, will appear in his election address. In fact, it sounded almost like a maiden speech, and we hope that he will not have occasion to make a speech again.
The Government's economic policy has reduced British industry in so many ways that firms are bound to clutch at whatever straws are available to them.

Mr. Budgen: They are entitled to.

Mr. Miller: I wish to move on briefly to what underlies Government policy in making grants available. Under both Governments, these grants have always gone to declining industries. This offers no hope for the future and, in particular, it does nothing to bring about the change in attitudes which is essential if this country is to make any progress. The speeches on economic affairs made in the House last week contributed nothing to bringing about the change in attitude which we need if we are successfully to fight our way out of our present difficulties.
The hon. Member for Sowerby spoke of the exciting prospect of more public accountability and planning agreements. The only planning agreement which we have had so far is that with Chrysler, which is hardly an exciting prospect, and public participation or industrial democracy in the Post Office does not seem to have done much for the consumer either in prices or in protecting him or

our public services from the go-slow operations of Post Office engineers.
What we are looking for from the Government, from our country's leadership, is a positive lead which will encourage people to change their attitudes so that from our existing capacity we can get the output necessary for us to withstand imports and build up our exports. Without that commitment and that realisation there is no prospect of the British people developing the confidence which alone will sustain them in their efforts. We in this place shall not save the country. We shall not transform the economy. Only people outside the House will bring about the necessary change, and for them to adopt the attitudes necessary for that to come about and to give their commitment they will need a far larger measure of confidence in the nation's leadership and in the industrial policy than they can have at present.

11.3 a.m.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I wish briefly to revert to the theme with which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) introduced the debate and upon which the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) touched, namely, the West Midlands economy and what might be done to aid that economy.
As the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch rightly said, the West Midlands economy needs an infusion of new industry from outside. I remember the time when I was, in effect, doing the job which my hon. friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry is doing—this was 10 years ago—when I was Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology. I made a speech in the West Midlands in which I pointed out that the excessive dependence of the West Midlands economy on one type of industry, namely, metal working, was in the long run exceedingly dangerous. What I then saw in prospect for industrial decline has come to pass, and in the West Midlands now we need above all diversification of the industrial structure and greater growth in the service sector.
I feel that I have a right to say that not least because I represent a constituency in which unemployment is running at a level much higher than it is in many of the assisted areas. Only one tiny part


of the West Midlands region is an assisted are—Oswestry, I believe—and in my constituency unemployment is far higher than it is in many of the intermediate areas and in some of the development areas.
Moreover, in my constituency I have a new town, as does the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch. One part of the Government is building houses there or encouraging the building of houses, and another part of the Government—represented on the Front Bench today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry—says "You cannot have IDCs and you cannot have assistance under section 7 because you are not a development area." We are restricted in terms of IDCs to the West Midlands conurbation, now minus the inner city areas, which does not leave very much, and even if it did leave very much the only industry which we could attract from that area would be precisely the sort of industry which the West Midlands has always had. As I say, what we want in my constituency is diversification to provide a sound base for industrial growth in the future, and we want access to section 7, too.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will recognise that we cannot go on sweeping the problems of the West Midlands under the carpet for ever and, equally, will recognise that it makes no sense to have a strategy advanced by the Department of the Environment for the transfer of population and industry from one part of the region to another and a strategy implemented by the Department of Industry which prevents the transfer of industry from one part of the region to another and, above all, prevents the infusion of new industry from outside into growth points in the West Midlands.

11.7 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer): I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick), for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) and for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) for raising these issues, which they have expressed in cogent terms.
I say at the outset that, of course, regional policy involves interference or intervention in the economy. It means that, as a Government, we say that market

forces cannot provide the jobs and cannot direct or persuade industry to go to those areas where the level of unemployment is such that some action needs to be taken. I am pleased that my hon. Friends recognise this and they recognise also the danger inherent in the policy expressed by many Conservative spokesmen for total abolition or at least significant reduction of support for industry and allowing market forces to prevail. Unquestionably, this would lead to widespread unemployment.
Intervention in the market place is essential if we are to develop our economy to its full potential, and the intervention in the market place which we undertake is in fact generous intervention, as my hon. Friends have pointed out. Section 7 assistance for the regions and section 8 assistance nationally under sectoral schemes is accompanied by 100 per cent. tax allowance on investment in plant and machinery, which is the most generous in western Europe. When the Opposition complain about the tax burden which, so they claim, this Government are imposing, they never admit that the Government are giving the most generous tax concessions for investment in plant and machinery in the whole of western Europe. This is a very important inducement to investment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak made a number of points about the West Midlands, and I assure him—indeed, he accepts this—that under section 8 of the Industry Act there has been significant assistance to the West Midlands. Under the ferrous foundry and machine tools schemes, for example, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin recognises, would have a significant effect on the West Midlands because the area is predominantly dependent on metal working industries, over the past two years there has been assistance under section 8 to a total of over £34 million which has safeguarded and developed a number of jobs.
Out of those two schemes particularly, as one might expect, the West Midlands region has done particularly well. Indeed, under the ferrous foundry scheme, which has been very successful, the West Midlands has received the greatest number of grants and approvals. The proportion of section 8 assistance in the West Midlands has been significant. I want to


emphasise that, because a feeling is sometimes expressed, certainly not by my hon. Friends, that a great deal of assistance goes to the regions, but very little goes to the non-assisted areas such as the West Midlands.
Of course, we have adjusted our regional policy to the extent that the regional employment premium was abolished. In fact, the general sectoral schemes, the selective investment scheme and the accelerated projects scheme were given an additional amount of finance and were applied nation wide. Temporary employment subsidy is a more selective form of assistance and applies to the West Midlands as well as to the regions. It has helped to maintain many thousands of jobs. Currently, about 200,000 jobs are being supported nation wide by TES.
There is that important element. Certainly, when I addressed a CSEU meeting in Birmingham, the generous spirit and understanding of the trade union representatives was a great pleasure for me to hear, in that they said "We recognise the important difficulties of trade unionists and fellow workers in regions which are hardest hit, such as Merseyside and the Northern region".
I was asked about the National Enterprise Board in the Midlands. Of course, the NEB has a regional role and has assisted in the regions on a number of occasions. Whether the NEB should have a Midlands regional board is a moot point. Certainly such a development would in any case be a matter for decision by the NEB.
The NEB has already assisted the Midlands significantly through its assistance to companies such as Alfred Herbert. For example, in December 1975, £26·2 million equity was provided for a new holding company in a capital reconstruction to wards resolving Alfred Herbert's problems. The shares were vested in the NEB in February 1976. Of course, the NEB is responsible for monitoring Alfred Herbert's performance. In April 1978, the NEB provided £10 million of new equity in the context of Alfred Herbert's corporate plan with the intention of investing in product development and machinery.
I am sure that all sections of the machine tool industry recognise what an important contribution Alfred Herbert makes and what an important move it

was for the Labour Government to rescue Alfred Herbert. If one takes away Alfred Herbert, one takes away a significant proportion of the machine tool industry, thereby weakening the British machine tool industry as a whole. The action taken by the Government was subsequently expanded by the NEB.
British Leyland is the most notable cause of assistance by the NEB. In 1977, a total of £150 million in loans was provided, all from the NEB, except £30 million under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972 which was approved by the House on 3rd August 1976. In 1978, capital reconstruction of British Leyland will involve the injection of new equity of £450 million. Therefore, the NEB is certainly making a significant contribution to the retention and development of jobs in the Midlands.
The Conservative Opposition criticise NEB assistance to British Leyland, but one must remember that in their document "The Right Approach" they state specifically that they will close down the NEB. That is a threat to jobs throughout the country. When the NEB takes action to assist British Leyland, and when the Government take action to assist Chrysler, also with very much a West Midlands centre, it must be remembered that not only are these two car firms involved but also about 10,000 small firms which supply services and components to those two car giants. It is not just a question of money going into two gigantic concerns; it is very much a question of money going to support small enterprises which to a significant degree depend for their existence on supplying components to those two large corporations.
It is as well to be reminded of that fact when the Conservative Opposition talk about pouring money into big concerns. In fact, small concerns benefit very much by this financial assistance.

Mr. Brute George: I apologise for intervening, not having heard my hon. Friend's original statement. However, in my constituency the town of Walsall does not make one car, yet if British Leyland or Chrysler were left to go to the wall the ripple or tidal effect would be absolutely catastrophic.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his concern about this matter and for the important point which he has expressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak said that assistance produces greater efficiency but that it may produce a reduction in jobs. On balance, investment produces a greater number of jobs, even though they may not be concentrated in the industry which is the recipient of the investment. For example, the machine tool industry has benefited from the investment in British Leyland and Chrysler. I well remember meeting representatives of the Machine Tool Trades Association some years ago when it made very strong representations that British Leyland and Chrysler should develop their programmes for investment in the machine tool industry in order to keep that industry buoyant.
My hon. Friend mentioned the difficulty of people on the dole. That is real and understood. The level of unemployment is far too high and we must take action to reduce it in every way that we can. I have mentioned some of the ways. I do not want to indicate complacency, because the Government are not complacent. We have to take further action. It is interesting that about two to two and a half years ago a prominent Conservative Back Bencher was claiming, without any evidence whatever, that half the people on the dole were on the fiddle. Not one Conservative Member has said that part of this number was actually in his constituency. Conservative Members are now expressing very great concern about the unemployed, yet none has repudiated the slanderous attack by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) on the unemployed at that time. Conservative Members should look to their background before they start making assertions about the level of unemployment. because if their policies were ever put into effect unemployment would be significantly greater than it is today.
Nevertheless, in spite of the point that I made about investment, the Government understand that very often large sums of investment—for example, in oil cracking plant—can produce a relatively small number of jobs. Therefore, we have given greater emphasis to the development of small firms. For example, we have done that by giving a cash grant from 1st July—the small firm employment subsidy. For 26 weeks, a small

firm with fewer than 200 employees in manufacturing industry can receive £20 for each additional employee it takes on. This operates in all the assisted areas and also in the partnerships area of Birmingham, so the West Midlands directly benefits from it.
We have also given considerable tax concessions, worth in a full year at least £200 million. Of course, small firms also benefit from some of the sectoral schemes and also from the 100 per cent. allowance for investment in plant and machinery. In the West Midlands we have started a small firms' counselling service which will help small firms expand, and also get them over any difficulties which they may face, by drawing on the experiences of counsellors who can assist them. The counselling service has produced a strong welcome from the small firms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby quoted a figure of about £12 million a day in grants and tax concessions which goes mostly to private industry. I am sure that he is not far wide of the mark when he quotes that figure. We are giving massive support which is safeguarding and creating jobs. Between 1976 and 1978, we safeguarded and created just under 150,000 jobs under section 7 of the Industry Act. If anyone were to cut down that level of assistance the number of jobs created or safeguarded would be consequently diminished. I have mentioned that the support that is given to large firms such as Alfred Herbert, British Leyland and Chrysler also helps small firms. That is an important aspect.
My hon. Friend referred to the wool textile scheme specifically and said that under it jobs had been lost. As a Yorkshire Member, I am concerned with the effects of the scheme. I have some specific information. I believe that the scheme has stabilised the industry and helped it to meet the competition that it faces from abroad.
Under the first stage scheme, projects had to be completed by 31st December 1977. The Department of Employment, which monitored the scheme on behalf of the Wool Textile EDC, recorded 3,563 redundancies up to 31st January 1977, by which date the manpower effects were virtually completed and monitoring


ceased. Of those made redundant 1,241, or 35 per cent., were known to have resettled in textiles. A further 840, or 24 per cent, were known to have found jobs in other industries. Of the remainder, 141, or 4 per cent., were still on the unemployment register on 31st January 1977.
According to the Wool Industry Bureau of Statistics, from 31st December 1973 to 31st December 1977, a period which coincided with the duration of the first stage scheme, there was a net reduction of 17,348 in the number of production personnel employed in the industry. That compares with the figure of 3,563 to which I have referred, which arose because of the scheme.
Under the second stage scheme, on the assumption that all the projects will go ahead, the estimated net loss in employment is only 69. Therefore, the second stage scheme introduced by the Government—the first stage was introduced by the previous Conservative Government—saw a significantly lower net loss. It is interesting to note that the number of production personnel in the industry at 31st December 1975 was 57,490—the bottom of the trough. On 31st May 1978, the latest date for which figures are available, the number was 58,084. That compares favourably with the losses of 17,348 between 31st December 1973 and 31st December 1975.
The scheme has helped to stabilise the industry. That is borne out by the figures and the fact that there has been a slight increase in the employment level of the industry. That is a sign of hope. Without that support, the wool textile industry would be in a much worse state.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby knows, the Government have taken strong action under the renegotiation of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement. He and I were not the most enthusiastic supporters of the Common Market. Indeed, we were among its opponents and critics. However, we are in the Common Market and that is a reality that we must face. That is an element that the Government had to overcome when negotiating the arrangement. We toughened up the arrangement and produced a greater degree of protection for the textile industry than has ever operated before. That is important in giving the industry confidence and ensuring that the wool textile

industry scheme is brought to bear effectively.
My hon. Friend mentioned Bradford, which is a town dear to my heart. He referred to the article by Hilary Rose in which she said that there had been a loss of jobs. That is right. We have a policy, which we still maintain, but we have found it difficult to implement it because of the intransigence of the CBI and the determined opposition by the Conservative Party to the implementation of planning agreements. I consider planning agreements to be extremely important because they give those who earn their livelihoods by their labour, as opposed to the ownership of capital, an involvement in decision-making.
It is appalling that members of the executive suite at Thorn's are able to sack 2,300 work people in spite of the representations of the trade unions and the duly elected Government. They arbitrarily sacked 2,300 people although in the previous year the company had made a profit of £57 million, although it owns 75 per cent. of the television rental market and although it imports considerable quantities of consumer goods for sale in Britain.
When my hon. Friend expresses concern about that sort of action, I share his concern and I want to see some development of policy to ensure that decisions of that type are taken not only in the interests of a Thorn balance sheet, or whatever multinational balance sheet is involved, but in the interests of the work-people and of the nation as a whole.
Planning agreements are essential to prevent arbitrary decisions by those who have the power of executive decision-making. People's lives are more important than the ownership of capital. Too often the ownership of capital has a decision-making power that is exclusive.
My hon. Friend talked about expenditure. The Department of Industry goes to great lengths to ensure that money that is given to industry under the various schemes is spent properly and applied to the purposes of the scheme under the application. We sometimes receive representations from Members of Parliament about the use of such money. We receive pleas for exemptions where, for instance, machinery is supplied for use in a development area and it is used subsequently outside. That use invalidates the


grant aid. Often we receive representations asking for exemption, but we apply the rule rigorously and seek to obtain a refund if outside use takes place. There are stringent conditions and we apply them to the best of our ability.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) said that he thought that there should be a better strategy for distribution of the grants. In the White Paper entitled "The Regeneration of British Industry" we suggested that the application of money, of support, could be best effected through planning agreements. We suggested that they would provide a better framework. If the hon. Gentleman is now coming round to the view that planning agreements make sense, we welcome that conversion. We hope that he will be able to persuade his hon. Friends to take that view.
However, there are 40 sector working parties which are analysing industry and producing means of improving British manufacturing industry. The sector working parties are producing, in some instances, valuable reports and schemes for action. Many of the sectoral schemes have come about as a result of consultations with the industry concerned. The sector working parties are tripartite since the trade unions are represented as well as the Government and the industry concerned. The sectoral schemes are not dreamed up in the abstract. They are developed only after consultation with the industry.
The sector working parties want the information on sectoral schemes to be understood at company level. We are now back at full circle because planning agreements were to be with the large and important companies—for example, the top 100 industrial companies in Britain. The working parties are recognising the importance of examining individual companies as opposed to sectors.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin pointed out a need for diversification in the West Midlands. Diversification is important in many areas so that a local economy may be more flexible and in a position to meet more readily changes in demand. Diversification is not confined to the West Midlands. My hon. Friend said that his area has a higher

level of unemployment than some intermediate areas. We are always examining the boundaries of the assisted areas. Clearly, changes can be made only after the closest scrutiny. We try to take into account all the factors in our continuous review of the boundaries.
As for IDCs, we cannot identify mobile projects and explain the virtues of moving to one of the assisted areas unless we have some element of IDC control. IDCs are given extremely readily. However, the only other way in which we could identify mobile projects would be for civil servants to read through the newspapers to try to pick up the items that are mobile. That would be an absurdity.
The Government have increased exemption limits to 15,000 sq. ft. For smaller areas an IDC is not required. If we have any pretensions of planning the economy, it is necessary to have some information. IDCs are one way of obtaining information. We are generous in granting IDCs in all parts of the country.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak for initiating the debate. I hope that I have satisfied him, in part, that the Government are determined to see the regeneration of British manufacturing industry because that is the basis on which all our social and educational services are built. It is only with a Government who are determined to plan the economy and to see a high level of investment that we shall succeed in this aim.
The one thing that we should not allow is a reversal to market forces and a cutting down of public expenditure, because that will mean hundreds, if not thousands, of firms going to the wall, with a catastrophic increase in the level of unemployment. That is what Conservative Party policy represents.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (ESSEX)

11.31 a.m.

Mr. Tony Newton: I am grateful to the usual channels for arranging that the debate on the Bill should continue for a little while, and I shall try to respond by being brief so that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) may also begin his debate.
This is, in any case, the fourth time since March that I have raised the problem of health services in my constituency and in Essex generally, so I have made some of the points before, but I do not apologise for raising the subject again. It is a matter of intense concern to my constituents, and the degree of anxiety about the state of health services in Essex remains very high.
I shall refer to only one recent example of the way in which that concern has shown itself. A petition was raised in my constituency by Roy Smith, headmaster of one of the main primary schools, about the absence of any significant casualty facilities for dealing with minor casualties in the two main towns of my constituency, Braintree and Witham. There are some small facilities, but they are inadequate in many ways.
It is a measure of Mr. Smith's worry, as the headmaster responsible for the welfare of 700 children—and he is supported by all the other headmasters in the area and many parents—about the situation that the petition has been circulated. There is a risk that it could take children an hour or more to get emergency treatment because of the distance, and the traffic congestion involved on the way, to the nearest accident emergency unit. This is an even bigger problem than the pressures on staff arising from the problems in education and the need for staff to travel with children. It is a source of major anxiety. I share that anxiety and I am supporting efforts to get something done to improve the minor casualty facilities.
It is worth noting that the local authority is considering whether this is a need that could appropriately be supported by a local lottery. I am entirely in favour of trying to raise money through local lotteries for such purposes, but it is a sad commentary on our National Health Service if essential, basic medical services can be financed only by local authority lotteries.
My main point is that it is accepted on all sides that Essex has suffered from historic neglect. Its population has grown rapidly but its health services, particularly the hospital services, have not kept pace. We are about £20 million under-funded, which is about £1 in every £5, and of all the counties around London

associated with Thames regional health authorities we have the lowest spending per head. It is significant, for example, that Kent, whose Members made most noise in our last debate on hospital services, currently receives more than £84 per head of population, while Essex has only just over £70 per head and is bottom of the list.
The question is not whether we need more money but whether the exercise in redistributing resources is going fast enough and in an adequate way. I must make clear that the area health authority does not believe that it is. I received a letter earlier this year from the area administrator of the area health authority, who said:
Having regard, therefore, to the fact that it is generally accepted that a small percentage increase is required annually by the Health Service merely to keep pace with medical and technical advances, the prospect for Essex is that its funding situation is likely to deteriorate in the foreseeable future rather than to improve.
The regional health authority, with which Essex Members have had a meeting, say in effect, that it accepts the need and that it is doing its best but that it is in an impossible position for two reasons. First, the Resources Allocation Working Party formula does not take sufficient account of London problems and the burden imposed by the existence of teaching hospitals, of which there are four in the North-Fast Thames region. Secondly, there have been delays about decisions on closures in London that are necessary to release resources for Essex.
I had intended to quote a letter from the regional health authority, but in the circumstances I shall not do that and will say merely that there is a clear indication that the Minister has been delaying decisions about the closures that are required to release resources for Essex. That is at variance with and calls into question the answer that I was given in May, when the Minister of State told me:
I am satisfied that the authority's policies are directed towards redressing inequalities within the region and I have no reason to doubt its judgment as to how quickly this can be done."—[Official Report, 9th May 1978; Vol. 949, c. 418.]
If the regional authority is right in saying that there has been undue delay in agreeing to the closures that are necessary to redistribute resources, the Minister is


being disingenuous. He cannot say that the region's judgment is right and at the same time allow it to emerge that he is not supporting the region's decisions with the necessary vigour.
Let me, finally, list briefly what I should like to hear from the Minister, including some points that I have not been able to touch on as fully as I would have liked. I should like to be told that the RAWP formula is to be reviewed in the light of experience to see whether it should be adjusted to take account of special London problems so that the needs of Essex can also be taken properly into account. I hope that the Minister will also consider whether there ought to be an entirely separate system of funding the teaching hospitals, which appear to be one of the major difficulties in all the Thames regions.
I should also like the Minister to underwrite the regional health authority's commitment that nothing will be allowed to hold up the urgent developments at Broomfield, near Chelmsford, and at Colchester, both of which are vital to my constituents.
Will the Minister also give an assurance that there will be reconsideration of the way in which GP services operate, and particularly of the structure of remuneration of GPs, so that the services can take better account than they seem to do at present of changes in transport patterns and the problems of village people getting to see their doctor? I should also like the guidance given about casualty facilities to be reconsidered so that towns of the size of Braintree and Witham are not left with nothing, or virtually nothing, to deal with the sort of accidents that can occur in schools and factories.
Finally, as I said in the Regional Affairs Standing Committee last week, I hope that when the Government finally publish their response to the review of the South-East strategy there will be a significant section in it about how they intend, in the light of further population changes, to remedy the deficiencies in the NHS structure in Essex and to make sure that further population increases will be matched by commensurate increases in health services. We must not have any more planning documents issued about population increase and development in

Essex that do not assure us that proper care will be taken of our health needs.

11.40 a.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: The problems concerning the hospital services in Harwich are almost double what they are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton). In Harwich we have an elderly population of 35,000 over retirement age. The problem is growing all the time. That is why I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments in this debate.
The problem is largely one of finance—the under-funding of the Essex area health authority by £20 million. Although my hon. Friend has talked about the difficulties of getting a fair share by shifting money from Kent to Essex, part of the trouble is that in this region as a whole we are not getting the money that is required for the services we need. To take money from Kent and then give it to Essex will hurt Kent. Although we want to see some money coming from London, the difficulty is that in the years in which we have had a Socialist Government, alas, the necessary growth in the gross national product has not taken place.
As a consequence of that, we have had a cut in health services. My constituents are now having to suffer from that because Socialism has not made the money that is required to support the general services and the health services that are required.
The waiting list for hospital beds grows. The general practitioners' position is under great strain. Although I am talking about difficulties in the hospital service, the empty beds in some of the hospitals are empty because the health authorities are not able to recruit nurses for the hospitals.
It is a most serious situation. We must consider the closing down of the Middlesex convalescent home in Clacton and the closure of the military hospital at Colchester, and then we must consider the promise from the Government that hospitals will be created possibly in five years' time. It is now that we should deal with the problem, not in five years' time. We want action immediately. What nonsense it was for the Government, just when the holiday period was beginning, to say that they would close the casualty ward at Clacton.
We are also concerned about the position of the mentally handicapped. I hope that when the Minister advises the Essex area health authority he will bear in mind the number of people whom we now have in private homes. I hope he will not just say that we do not have our fair share of resources because that number is not credited to us in official statistics. Some people locally are convinced that we are dealing with more than our fair share of mentally handicapped people because of this, and they would much prefer the Middlesex convalescent home to be a release care home to look after the very many elderly in the constituency who are in homes in which people have to look after them.
Finally, I would mention the dental position in Essex. Again, that is becoming very serious. The dentists came up to see us only last week. The stories that they told us of the lack of facilities in the hospitals, particularly facilities for specialist treatment, and of a waiting list of 46 weeks for an appointment to be seen and then a 52-week waiting list to be seen again after that, indicate a crisis.
This is something to which the Government must apply their minds. Merely to say that help is coming because they will cut away money from Kent to give it to the Essex authority is not good enough. The Government should be giving more money, because we have a far bigger share of the elderly population in our part of the world than is realised.
We want help now. Pensioners welcomed the increase in pensions, but it is not good enough that they should find two things to be worried about. One of them is the lack of hospital beds and facilities. The other worry is that they also find they are having to pay increased fares to reach the hospitals. They are being put in a most invidious position. The only way in which we can help them is by having a change of Government, and a Government who will make the money required to put these services into the right condition.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Antony Buck: My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) has done a great service in raising this matter in the House yet again. All of us who have the privilege of representing Essex constituencies are deeply

anxious, continually so, as the Minister knows, about the health service in our area.
I have promised some of my hon. Friends who wish to debate another matter that is of some urgency that I shall be brief, in view of their anxieties.
The Minister is familiar with the problems of our area by now. He has visited our area. Also, I had the privilege of taking a delegation to see him and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army about the lunatic decision of the present Administration to close the Colchester military hospital. That is a decision which has exacerbated the situation in regard to the health service facilities provided in our area.
The Minister received an all-party delegation, which also included an ex-Labour Cabinet Minister who now sits in another place. Lord Alport, my predecessor as Member for Colchester. However, in spite of the strong representations made by us and in spite of a great campaign raised in Colchester and the whole of the area, which was backed by the local press and by all responsible people, the lunatic decision to close the military hospital has been implemented. Perhaps the Minister will be able to say something about what is intended with regard to the future of the hospital that the Government were foolish enough to close.
Like my hon. Friend, I, too, ask for an assurance that the new hospital will go ahead in Colchester. The situation is desperate. It is exacerbated by the closure of the military hospital. I am concerned not only about the lack of proper facilities for the civilians in our area but also, as a former Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, about the effect that this closure could have on the troops in Colchester and, more particularly, on their families. I am concerned about the fact that when they serve in Northern Ireland and their families are left behind in Colchester, we are not able now to see that they are provided with proper medical facilities. What an effect it must have on the morale of a young soldier serving in Northern Ireland if he knows that his family back in Colchester are not receiving the very best of health service treatment.
My hon. Friends have outlined some of the problems. They are manifold in


our area. They are particularly bad on the maternity side, where help is desperately needed. I reiterate what has been said by my hon. Friend. We seek from the Minister an assurance that the new hospital planned for Colchester—whatever the financial climate and the situation in the country—will at long last go ahead.
Ever since 1961, when I became the Member for Colchester, I have been campaigning for a new hospital in our district. It is now more desperately needed than ever before. Even after this lengthy debate concerning other matters I hope that we shall have an assurance on this subject from the Minister today, before we proceed to other matters about which some of my hon. Friends are worried.

11.47 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins: I know that the problems facing the National Health Service in Essex are of deep concern to the hon. Members for Braintree (Mr. Newton), Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) and Colchester (Mr. Buck), and, indeed, to other hon. Members whose constituencies are in the area. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State share the view that at present the Essex area health authority is under-funded and that further resources need to be made available. Both have also visited the area and have seen at first hand the difficulties that the services are experiencing. We have had some examples this morning from hon. Members.
The North East Thames regional health authority is also fully aware of the serious concern expressed by hon. Members. The RHA chairman has been in close touch with the Essex AHA chairman, who has had a meeting—which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Braintree—with a number of Essex Members of Parliament. The RHA chairman has confirmed the RHA's intention to direct extra resources to Essex.
The population in Essex has been rising rapidly for many years, and, while there have been a number of major building schemes, the provision of new services has not kept pace with the population growth.
While my right hon Friend is committed to a policy of achieving a fairer distribution of resources, both between regions and between areas within them, it must be recognised that there are very real practical difficulties which have to be overcome in accelerating the rate at which resources may be increased in under-provided areas, such as Essex.
The speed with which the distribution of resources between RHAs and AHAs can be achieved obviously depends upon the amount of funds available to the hospital and community health services. While I welcome the call made by the hon. Member for Harwich for more resources for the NHS, I have to remind him and the House that the NHS share of national resources—gross domestic product—has increased substantially under the present Government.
While one always welcomes calls to support increased spending, there must nevertheless be some limit to the amount of national resources that can be preempted for the NHS. Whether we have reached that point is another matter, but I would certainly welcome the assistance of all hon. Members, especially those in Essex, of both major parties, in fighting a battle to get more resources. Redistribution must inevitably be a gradual process, because the above-target regions and areas must plan for the redeployment of resources and rationalisation of services without putting important health services at risk.
The North-East Thames RHA, which is responsible for the allocation to Essex, is, under the RAWP criteria, above its target allocation in terms of current resources. This means that the region as a whole will attract only minimal growth in its allocation to assist in the rationalisation of its services and to effect some further progress towards a fairer distribution of resources within the region. Both my right hon. Friends and the RHA accept that the Essex AHA is under-funded, and that the long-term answer is to achieve the sort of redistribution of resources envisaged in the RAWP report. However, the extent of that under-funding has not yet been finally determined.
Based on the interim report of the RAWP, the RHA calculated, as the hon. Member for Braintree pointed out, that Essex was under-funded by about £20


million in 1976 on a population basis, but that calculation did not fully take account of factors such as the cost of regional specialties, medical and dental undergraduate training, providing services in London, and meeting the deprivation in inner city areas. As the regional chairman has pointed out, spending per head is not the only criterion, and account has to be taken of the factors mentioned at length in the letter from which the hon. Gentleman would have quoted had he had time.
The hon. Gentleman asked me some specific questions, for example, about a separate funding of teaching hospitals, and also for some guidance about casualty figures in smaller towns in his area. I hope that he will allow me to write to him on these matters, in view of the time factor.
The North-East Thames region contains a number of socially deprived districts such as parts of Islington, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Hackney and, as the Government's inner city programme recognises, the problems existing in such areas require special attention. While the extent to which social deprivation affects health care is still a matter for detailed investigation, it is known that bad housing and social conditions inevitably lead to a lengthening of a patient's stay in hospital. This means that it is necessary for there to be a larger number of beds than may be necessary under the norm until such time as the social conditions can be improved. It is for this reason that in the acute sector there is a variation in the bed norms between districts.
As I mentioned, another of the factors the RHA must take into account is those services that are so costly that they can be provided only in selected centres, for example, neurosurgery and cardiothoracic surgery. These are known as regional specialties, and in the main cost substantially more to run than do the normal specialities, with a consequent effect on revenue distribution. While Essex has about one-third of the region's population, it has few of the regional specialties, and it is the RHA's intention to move more of these specialities into Essex. A small start has been made by the RHA's decision to progress with the siting of the regional burns unit at Billericay. As other regional specialties

come up for review the RHA will consider which of these specialties might be relocated in Essex.
These factors all have an impact on the way in which resources are distributed within the region, and the RHA is now urgently investigating them with a view to re-calculating area targets.
In the present economic climate, with only a small real growth in the funds available to the North-East Thames regional health authority—about 0·3 per cent. in 1978–79—the redistribution of resources will take time to complete. However, even though the additional resources available have been limited, the RHA has in recent years begun to move resources to Essex. In 1976–77 the RHA made additional revenue available to Essex, and this is continued in the revenue allocations for 1978–79, with a further £268,000 on a recurring basis.
In addition to revenue, Essex also requires new health facilities, and some of these are currently being planned by the RHA. In the RHA's priority capital building programme, which has first call on its capital resources, three of the projects are in Essex. These schemes are for the development of a community hospital at Clacton and the provision of new district general hospitals in Chelmsford and Colchester. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the timing of this, if I may, as it is a matter in which he and his constituents are particularly interested.
These developments will be costly to run and the RHA is committed to providing the additional revenue which will be required on their completion. Indeed, the RHA has decided that in making allocations the first call upon revenue in the coming financial year should be for new buildings coming into use. In the case of Essex this will amount to an extra £867,000 this year, and as more schemes are completed this will build up to approximately £2·5 million.
It is also clear that, necessary as these developments are, they will not in themselves produce a final solution. More facilities will be required in Essex and the region will be identifying these in its amended regional strategic plan.
Further assistance was given to health authorities by the additional £50 million made available to the NHS for 1978–79 in the Budget. The North-East Thames


RHA has been allocated £1·28 million revenue from this sum and an extra £76,000 capital. The RHA has now distributed these funds to the areas and Essex has received some £613,000 revenue, comprising £250,000 for the commissioning of capital schemes, £284,000 for the improvement of mental handicapped, mental illness and geriatric services—of particular interest to the hon. Member for Harwich—£32,000 for the reduction of waiting lists, £29,000 for the development of health education and £18,000 for the improvement of foetal monitoring and special care baby units.
The allocation of resources to the health districts within the Essex area is a matter for the area health authority, and the authority expects that the additional funds made available from the RHA, together with the extra resources from the Budget allocation, will enable then to make noticeable improvements in mental handicap, mental illness and geriatric services. The resources will be used to bring the various units for the mentally handicapped up to the level of the best now existing, and services for the mentally ill, which are in great need of support, will derive substantial benefit from the appointment of additional community psychiatric nursing staff in each district. In accordance with national guidelines, the authority is seeking to promote the development of community geriatric services.
The hon. Member for Harwich mentioned a number of constituency points on which he has been very assiduous in correspondence with my Department. I take note of his continuing concern. When there are further developments I shall ensure that either I or the Minister of State will be in touch wih him.
The health services in Essex have therefore benefited from the additional funds made available by my Department and the RHA but both accept that further resources are still needed. Hon. Members may be assured that it is our policy to ensure that areas such as Essex will in the future receive their fair share of health resources. While this may take some time to achieve, for the reasons I have already stated, I am convinced that the North-East Thames regional health authority is committed to providing additional resources for Essex and intends

pressing ahead with the necessary rationalisation of other services in other areas in order to make those resources available to Essex, where they are very badly needed.

CHARITY COMMISSION

11.57 a.m.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: To initiate a debate on the Charity Commission some 21 hours after the House has begun its present Sitting may be considered by some to be somewhat uncharitable, and I apologise for that, but I think that the Minister and the House will be aware of the very great interest in this matter. She will be aware, as the House will, that there is on the Order Paper an early-day motion relating to this matter which has been signed by over 320 hon. Members—an almost unprecedented event. The Minister will be aware of the great interest outside the House in the powers of the Charity Commission.
Let me make clear from the beginning that I do not wish to launch any general attack on the Charity Commission. It does an enormously good job and is responsible for some 115,000 charities. In general, it does a service which is of credit to it and of great benefit to the country. I will concentrate my inevitably short remarks on the particular powers of the Charity Commission, not in regard to registering new charities but in regard to existing charities throughout the United Kingdom.
My first point is that, under the present legislation, the Charity Commission has the power entirely at its own discretion to deregister an existing charity or to take other administrative action which can have substantial consequences for that charity. Of course, one appreciates that when the Charity Commission is considering a new applicant for registration, it is only right and proper that the onus should be on the applicant to prove its charitable status, but at the moment the Charity Commission has total discretion, by administrative act of its own making, to deregister an existing charity, and in effect to remove its charitable status. This can sometimes take place in relation to a charity which might have had charitable status for over 150 years, and it is clearly a very worrying matter indeed.
This is an important matter, and although there is an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Charity Commission, this is not a very satisfactory solution, because the onus is upon the institution which has in effect lost its charitable status. It can sometimes be a very expensive matter for it to pursue, and I know of at least one charity which was unable to pursue the matter in the High Court because it did not have the funds to make that possible.
In addition, it can sometimes be a matter of one or two years or even longer before the High Court is in a position to judge whether the Charity Commission is correct, and this is a very unfortunate state of affairs.
These problems refer to all charitable institutions, but I point out to the Minister that there is a particular problem in regard to Churches and other religious institutions, because in my view it is even more unfortunate that their charitable status should, in effect, be endangered by the administrative decision of the Charity Commission.
I say that they are a special case, because the Minister will be aware that in regard to religious organisations there is a presumption that their purposes or their doctrines are not contrary to public policy and therefore that their charitable status should not be endangered. Indeed, the Charity Commission, in a letter of 10th May 1977, stated as follows:
It is not disputed that there is a presumption that trusts established for purposes of a religious nature are for the public benefit.
Although the Charity Commission does not dispute that, under existing legislation it is clear that that presumption can be overturned simply because the Commission itself believes that a religious organisation, a Church or any charitable institution, no longer has objectives consistent with public policy and therefore no longer deserves the advantages of charitable status.
It is particularly unfortunate, therefore, that Churches and religious organisations which have this presumption of entitlement to charitable status should face the possibility of losing their status overnight through administrative decision of the Commission and that only if they are prepared to incur the expense and delay of an appeal to the High

Court, can they hope to have the decision overturned.
Section 6 of the 1960 Act enables the Commissioners to institute inquiries, where they think appropriate for an unlimited range of purposes. Normally, the use of this section has been limited to cases where the Commissioners have reason to believe that there has been some financial abuse or technical impropriety in the administration of a trust. In one case, however, and in one case only, the section has been used to appoint a person to initiate a full inquiry into whether the doctrines and beliefs of a religious sect are or are not contrary to public policy. As a result of the report which was presented, certain administrative decisions were taken by the Commissioners.
Section 6 has wide scope. I will not go into the details of the case concerned, because it is possible that certain matters are sub judice and it would not be appropriate. However, it is well known that the group to whom I refer are the Exclusive Brethren, who have been in this position as a consequence of the existing use of the application of section 6.
The time has come to consider whether it is appropriate that section 6 should be used to initiate inquiries for the purpose of investigating the religious beliefs and the acceptability of religious doctrines of particular groups. If that is necessary in the public interest, it should be the courts or Parliament which are responsible and it should not be left to the administrative decision of the Charity Commissioners.
Even where the Commissioners have not sought to deregister an existing charity or to remove entirely, so far as they can, the charitable status of a group, they can take administrative decisions with serious financial and administrative effects on the institution concerned. I understand that those powers are used under section 18 of the 1960 Act and that, in the case of the Exclusive Brethren, the Commissioners have used their powers to say that they will not approve further or new schemes for the arrangement of various trusts of that organisation.
Clearly, whether in this case or in any other, where those powers are used there can be serious consequences. Although in theory the charitable status of the organisation may not be removed by


the application of these administrative powers, in practice the same effect may be achieved because great doubts will be raised in the public mind whether those organisations or religious groups continue to deserve charitable status and their tax position will clearly come under much more scrutiny.
I am not questioning whether there may be situations in which existing charities deserve to lose their charitable status and the consequent benefits. What I am questioning is whether it is appropriate that existing charities, which may have had undisputed charitable status for over 100 years, should lose it, either in so many words or, in effect, through the administrative decision of the Commissioners, with the onus then upon the charity to get a ruling from the High Court.
It is much more appropriate to think in terms of the early-day motion, signed by over half the Members of this House, which suggests:
the powers of the Charity Commission should be altered so that the charitable status of religious bodies and churches cannot be removed by the Commission, or be treated by the Commission as if it had been removed, unless or until the said religious bodies or churches have been found to have objects or practices inconsistent with charitable status by a court of law.
That seems a reasonable proposition—that existing charities should be allowed to continue with all the advantages of a charitable institution at least until a court or Parliament has ruled otherwise.
I hope that the Government will urgently consider a matter which has caused enormous concern among many people, both in religious groups and on a wider front. I hope that the Minister will take the large number of signatures to the early-day motion as an important indication of the feeling in all parts of the House about important changes which may be required to this aspect of our law.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: Before the hon. Member sits down, would he agree that one of the most glaring anomalies in the operation of the Charities Act is Gordonstoun School in Scotland, which is regarded as a charity, whereas the average old-age pensioners' branch in Scotland has to pay tax because it is not regarded as a charity?

Mr. Rifkind: That is not relevant, with respect, to what I was saying. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not seek to answer his question.

12.7 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): In replying to the matters raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) concerning the Charity Commission and its powers, I should like to begin with a brief explanation of the status of the Charity Commissioners and their existing powers.
The Charity Commissioners have the duty of maintaining a register of charities, and the inclusion of an institution in that register is for all other purposes conclusive proof that the institution is a charity. In deciding whether an institution qualifies for inclusion in the register the Commissioners are acting judicially, and their decisions are subject to appeal to the High Court. Neither my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary nor any other Minister has any responsibility for the Commissioners' decisions, or any power to intervene in the taking of those decisions. The questions which the Commissioners have to determine, in deciding whether to register a body as a charity, are questions of fact and of law, not questions of policy.
A decision that a body qualifies for registration means simply that, on the information before the Commissioners, that body appears to fulfil the conditions required by law for charitable status. If subsequently the Commissioners receive information indicating that a body included in the register no longer fulfils those conditions, they have power to remove it from the register, under a procedure which ensures fairness to all parties concerned.
A decision by the Commissioners to enter an institution on the register is not in any way a seal of official approval. It is generally held to be one of the virtues of our society that voluntary associations and other institutions are free to exist and flourish without requiring official approval. All that registration as a charity implies is that the body so registered is established and operated for purposes which are charitable purposes under the law of England and Wales.
What, then, are the criteria for registration as a charity? There have been many


attempts to find a definition of a charity that could be enacted in statutory form but, despite the efforts of the lawyers, no one has yet devised a satisfactory one. The present legal meaning of "charity" is based partly on the preamble to the Charitable Uses Act 1601, which lists examples of purposes which were considered charitable in the time of Queen Elizabeth I, and partly on the judicial exegesis of this list in a long line of cases decided by the courts since then.
The Chancery Division of the High Court decides in doubtful cases what is a charitable purpose and Lord Macnaghten in a famous case in 1891—Commissioners of Income Tax v Peinsel—classified charitable purposes under the four main heads. These were the relief of poverty, the advancement of education, the advancement of religion and other purposes beneficial to the community. This method of definition provides a considerable degree of flexibility, and enables the frontiers of charity to change in response to changing social needs.
The current definition of charitable purposes has been re-examined in recent years, first by the Expenditure Committee in a report presented in 1975 and then by the committee on charity law and voluntary organisations, which was set up by the National Council of Social Service under Lord Goodman's chairmanship, and whose report was published in December 1976.
Both committees expressed a wish to see the boundaries of the definition more tightly drawn in order to exclude those fringe religious bodies which they regarded as harmful. As part of our general consideration of the two reports we are examining urgently the scope for introducing such a limitation. Any redefinition would, of course, require legislation, which we are not permited to discuss now.
The hon. Member has also gone into some detail about the scheme-making powers of the Charity Commissioners under section 18 of the Charities Act. This is a quasi-judicial function which enables the Commissioners to exercise powers concurrent with those of the High Court. It was never envisaged, however, that the Commissioners would usurp the entire powers of the court, and subsection (9) specifically provides that the

Commissioners shall not exercise their jurisdiction in a matter which is particularly contentious, or which, because of special questions of fact or law, the Commissioner consider should be decided by the court.
I come now to the points which the hon. Member has raised about particular religious bodies. He referred to the problems encountered by the sect known as the Exclusive Brethren since the major division of the sect, which dates from about 1970, between supporters and opponents of its former leader, James Taylor junior. The Charity Commissioners have taken great trouble to try to sort out these problems so far as they affected the sect's charitable status and the ownership of trust property.
In 1974 the Commissioners appointed Mr. Hugh Elvett Francis QC to conduct an inquiry under the Charities Act into the doctrines and practices of the Exclusive Brethren. Mr. Francis submitted a report in 1976 recommending that, pending a decision by the courts, the Commissioners should not register any meeting house of the sect which had adopted the doctrine of "separation from evil" as practised by the followers of James Taylor junior. The Charity Commissioners, however, after considering representations made on behalf of the proTaylorite group, decided that in the present uncertain state of the law, to which I referred earlier, and in view of legal proceedings then pending, it would not be right for them to adopt Mr. Francis's recommendation. I emphasise to hon. Members who signed the early-day motion that the Charity Commisisoners had not acted to remove charitable status from any of the trusts mentioned but have said that the questions are so special that the courts, not the Commissioners, must decide. In the meantime, the Commissioners are preserving the status quo. The proceedings which were pending in 1976 subsequently lapsed, but have now been renewed. The issues are thus sub judice and I ought not to comment on them any further.
I am sure that the Charity Commissioners will have noted what the hon. Member has said about the way in which they carry out their functions. He can see from what I have said that the existing powers of the Commission are far more limited than is generally supposed.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:

The House proceeded to a Division—

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House; immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: (seated and covered): On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr Oscar Murton): Order. No point of order arises on the closure.

The House having divided: Ayes 139, Noes 5.

Division No. 3221
AYES
12.14 p.m.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Park, George


Armstrong, Ernest
George, Bruce
Parker, John


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Golding, John
Pendry, Tom


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gourlay, Harry
Perry, Ernest


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Graham, Ted
Phipps, Dr Colin


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Prescott, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Price, William (Rugby)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Boardman, H.
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Rifkind, Malcolm


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Henderson, Douglas
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Horam, John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Buchanan, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Rooker, J. W.


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Jager, Mrs Lena
Rowlands, Ted


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
John, Brynmor
Ryman, John


Carlisle, Mark
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sever, John


Carmichael, Neil
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sinclair, Sir George


Cohen, Stanley
Kelley, Richard
Spearing, Nigel


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Steel, Rt Hon David


Conlan, Bernard
Lamond, James
Strang, Gavin


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Crawshaw, Richard
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Litterick, Tom
Tilley, John


Cryer, Bob
Lomas, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
McElhone, Frank
Torney, Tom


Dalyell, Tam
MacFarquhar. Roderick
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wainwright, Edwin (Deanne V)


Deakins, Eric
Magee, Bryan
Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Ward, Michael


Dormand, J. D.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Watkins, David


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Weetch, Ken


Duffy, A. E. P.
Molloy, William
Wellbeloved, James


Eadie, Alex
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitehead, Phillip


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
William, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Morton, George
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


English, Michael
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Woof, Robert


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Newton, Tony
Young, David (Bolton E)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Noble, Mike



Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Oakes, Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ford, Ben
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Mr. Joseph Dean.


Fry, Peter
Palmer, Arthur





NOES


Carson, John
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Mr. Robin Hodgson and


Lawrence, Ivan

Mr. Peter Bottomley.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

COMPUTER MACROSYSTEMS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

12.29 p.m.

Mr. Adam Hunter: The House will agree that we have waited a very long time for this Adjournment debate. It has been a long, long night. However, I am glad indeed to be able to raise this subject even at this hour. This matter is of great relevance to the public. However, I am always surprised to find that so few people in Government and outside it are interested in the subject of computer macrosystems.
The Minister must think it strange that an hon. Member with my industrial background should want to debate computer macrosystems. I do not blame him for that. His Department will know, however, that I have dared to venture into this area of information retrieval services over a period of years. I have asked Questions and have corresponded with the Secretary of State for Education and Science and officials of the British Library. But it has not been possible to elicit what success research and development in computerised information services for science and technology have achieved or what the costs would be if the British Library automated information service materialised.
I have no particular interest in this subject. The debate stems from a constituency interest. The Scientific Documentation Centre is in my constituency. The research director of that centre has been battling for years to prove that manually operated retrieval services are more efficient and less costly than computerised systems.
The centre has been established for 15 years. In its first 10 years it set up five major information retrieval projects. First, it set up the largest British information base of its kind, containing 1,500,000 coded references. These cover most of the subjects of spectrometry, analytical chemistry, computers and related subjects, information retrieval librarianship and about 40 narrower subjects. Secondly, this information base can be used for retrospective searches, which have the same cost effectiveness

advantage as the SDC's current awareness services.
Thirdly, this information base can supply complete bibliographies covering whole subject sections with the same cost effectiveness advantage as the SDC's current awareness services. Fourthly, the SDC has collected the largest generally available collection of spectra and spectral data. A complete range of spectra services operate from this spectra data base. Fifthly, the SDC's current awareness and SDI services give higher recall than their computerised equivalents at lower unit costs. They supply more users than any of the Government-subsidised SDI services.
The long-term aim of the SDC is to become established as a major supplier of scientific information. To do that, it is necessary for it to transform part of its information base to the indexing of publications. That requires money and is one reason for the debate.
Being funded by taxpayers' money through the allocation of grants from the British Library research and development department would not be desired by the SDC if it were not for the fact that the British Library research and development department's grants go to organisations to assist them with research and development of computer information retrieval services. If other systems are to receive financial support, why should not the SDC receive support? Why is there this unfair competition? Why should not the SDC get support for research in order to compare costs of the different methods of handling information?
The office of scientific and technical information, a Government Department, spent large sums of public money on certain computerised information projects, especially those produced by the United Kingdom Chemical Information Service. Dr. Davison, the research director of the SDC, has constantly criticised this information service. From evidence, it seems that the SDC was able to compete successfully with the United Kingdom Chemical Information Service as long ago as 1974. The OSTI has now disappeared. I understand that its staff was transferred to the research and development department of the British Library.
Policies do not appear to have changed. Several reports have been published. One,


the Oxford evaluation, did not comment favourably on the work that UKCIS contributed over a period of time. It showed up the ineffectiveness of the work relative to other services. The SDC's experience with the British Library research and development department has been no different from what it was with OSTI. The nature of complaints voiced by the SDC remain the same.
Over many years, several Secretaries of State for the Department of Education and Science have been involved. The present Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State when I asked a Question in the House about this matter. A considerable number of issues give me reason for concern about how the present position has arisen.
For example, the Oxford evaluation showed the advantages of systems based on people as against computers. It cost the Department over £40,000, and probably more. It has never been published because the Department would not insist on misleading statements supporting the removal of the computer systems. The Oxford and Birmingham reports, which were paid for from departmental funds, hide the advantages of manual systems and show the Department's pro-computer policy to be ill based.
A recent report blithely claims economic viability within three to five years for a computer on-line network which the British Library has supported. The same type of claim was, no doubt, made frequently of the Swansea centre when it was opened. A recent report, supporting computerised veterinary information services, concludes that all information is recorded already and will be available through the network. The report also admits on the same page that no system is able to provide all the material that the scientists want and which is known to exist.
High expenditure on computer systems from the Department of Education and Science by OSTI and by the British Library research and development department over a decade has been accompanied by a refusal of funds for competing systems based on people. This is despite substantial independent evidence that systems operated by people are much more efficient in retrieving the information required.
Are the Department and the British Library research and development department in a position to deny that 61 per cent. of the money awarded by the funding Department was, in one five-year period alone, awarded to organisations associated with participants on the committee at the head of that funding Department? If not, it means that 61 per cent. of funds was awarded to people with an organisational, financial interest. I am sure the Minister will agree that in most situations this would nut be allowed.
The Department awarded 61 per cent. of its funds to organisations associated with a tiny select body of information scientists on its principal committee, but there was no representation from the one organisation in the United Kingdom which has specialised in this work for 15 years —far longer than any of these computer systems have existed. Indeed, ideas initiated in grant applications from this body, seem, after rejection by the Department, to have been supported later in organisations associated with members of the controlling committee of the funding Department. If such a state of affairs exists, can we be surprised that my constituent condemns the grant allocation system?
I have written many letters to officials engaged in the funding Department asking questions in an effort to establish whether the refereeing committees awarding these grants were truly independent, but I have received no satisfactory answer. This can be compared with a situation in a local authority where a secret committee of unnamed people was allowed to allocate the authority's tenders. That comparable state of affairs would not be tenable in any local authority. Why should it be acceptable in a funding Department using taxpayers' money?
Is the Minister of State able to comment on a report coming from a recent official meeting of British users of online systems at which one of the main speakers supporting the British Government-funded on-line system made an extraordinary statement about objectionable pressures being put on staff to use on-line computer systems when otherwise they would not have used them? At the same meeting, one of the operators of a Government-supported American-based on-line computer system was astonishingly


critical of the quality of the data bases available by computer.
It has been drawn to my notice that evidence is available regarding a degree of censorship by the British Library or its officials of a report highly critical of a senior official who made allegedly untrue, misleading and damaging statements in this controversy. The suggestion of such a thing happening should be enough for my hon. Friend the Minister of State to emphasise the seriousness of censorship to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, especially when it is levelled at an organisation such as the British Library which controls the nation's storehouse of scientific and technical knowledge.
The time is too short and the complexity of the subject so great that I am unable to treat it in as detailed a fashion as I should like. I trust that, from what I have said, the Minister of State can recommend to the Secretary of State that a public inquiry is essential to throw proper light on these matters, to ensure that any faults in the past are removed and to ensure that future policy on support for computer systems and research and development for them is properly in the public interest.
It is accepted today that employment and social values are of high importance. To continue a policy which uses substantial amounts of taxpayers' money to build computer systems to put people out of work and which do the job more expensively and less effectively than the people they replace is completely against common sense.
No doubt, many who read my part in this debate will call it Ludditism. It certainly is not. The debate is necessary simply to show that not all computerised systems are effective or cheap to run. Computer systems will tend to be successful and economic in situations where the data or information which they hold is used frequently. They will tend to be unsuccessful and too expensive for situations where data or information is used infrequently. They will tend to be successful in dealing with material in respect of which the unit manipulated is short, and unsuccessful and very expensive when dealing with material in respect of which the unit manipulated is long.
I have asked questions also about telecommunication on-line costs in order to gather information about on-line systems, particularly abroad, and the answer which I received from the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, was not very good. Not only has my constituent been complaining about the cost of telecommunication on-line systems, but other people are now writing or telephoning to me from the London area to say how wrong my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was to reply as he did. It seems, therefore, that even in America computer systems are very costly, and I understand that the cost of searching for data or information from any of the great American computer centres is extremely high.
I conclude with something which someone has already said to me—"Employ jobless graduates, not mindless computers."

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I support the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Hunter) in this important matter. It involves three strands which, I am sure, will appeal to the Minister: the employment of human beings, the saving of public expenditure and the efficiency of public Departments.
The Minister is interested in open government. All of us are interested in open government. I believe that an inquiry is essential, and in saying that I acknowledge at once that the hon. Member for Dunfermline is in no sense a Luddite.
All wisdom is not new wisdom, and all new systems are not necessarily more efficient than those which they replace. It is not necessary to computerise everything just because someone has invented the computer. I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, and I thank the Minister for allowing me briefly to intervene.

12.46 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Hunter) both on his physical endurance—surviving the night in order to raise this important matter—and on his persistence. In his opening words my hon. Friend suggested that the House might be


surprised that he dared to venture into the field of computers. I am delighted that a man with industrial experience ventures into this field. Indeed, it is a field in which the ordinary member of the public with industrial experience has something entirely relevant to offer if we are to control and tame creations which should serve the public interest instead of the public interest serving them.
In so far as my hon. Friend argues for careful consideration of the pros and cons before one embarks on any computer-based project, I agree with him in both principle and practice, but it he argues, as he seemed to imply later, that we should not examine the possible roles of computers or use them for legitimate purposes when these are established, I must disagree with him firmly. One cannot put the clock back. One must make the best possible use of technological progress while taking full account of its implications.
Computers, complex though they are, are a tool—perhaps the most sophisticated tool yet available to us, but still no more than a means to an end. They can be misused by being harnessed to purposes which are either suspect in themselves or are inherently unsuitable to be pursued by computers. But when they are used properly they offer vast benefits, especially in information, communications, management, research and many other fields. Their effect is not only to reduce costs and increase the range and quality of service but also by so doing to enable skilled labour to be used more extensively and productively.
Coming to terms with the computer will require constant vigilance, not least about the effect on our individual liberties. As my hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) will be aware, the Younger Committee on privacy reported in 1972, and in a White Paper published in 1975 on computers and privacy the Government stated that computer systems in the public sector were operated in accordance with administrative rules which provided substantial safeguards against any improper use but concluded that there was a need to establish permanent machinery not only to keep the situation under review but also to seek to ensure that all present and future

computer systems holding personal information, in both public and private sectors, were operated with adequate safeguards for the privacy of the individual.
Nor are the Government unmindful of the underlying economic and social implications of the technological changes which are now occurring in the computer field, particularly, as my hon. Friend said, in microelectronics. He will be aware that the Prime Minister has recently made clear the Government's concern, and much action is being taken on this front.
The Government have a wide interest and involvement in the use of computers. They must have, because if we do not take full advantage of their potentialities, we can be sure that our competitors abroad will. It would not be right for me today to discuss all the beneficial uses of computers, but I believe that the House is aware of the many fields in which computers now provide an invaluable service. It would not be too much to say that if the Government and their agencies did not employ computers, and large computers at that, to assist with scientific research, we should miss many discoveries of great interest and great potential importance to the economic and social welfare of our people.
The important point about the related technologies of computers and telecommunications is that they are moving very rapidly. Each change makes more things possible or reduces the cost of doing them. A dozen years ago, there was widespread scepticism about the use of computers in any information process. Since then they have become widely established for the typesetting of publications and the production of printed indexes. Their use in the generation and handling of library records, especially catalogues, has grown so rapidly that the question is no longer whether they should be used but what combination of local, co-operative and national services can bring the greatest benefit from their use.
In what is known as "information retrieval "—an area in which I believe my hon. Friend is deeply interested—the scene has changed significantly over the last few years with the evolution of what are called "on-line" systems, by which a user can question remote files of information direct and conduct a dialogue with them until he has the information he


needs. No doubt many hon. Members are aware that the British Post Office is already providing a commercially successful service which links United Kingdom users to 70 or more files of scientific, technical, economic and commercial information held in California, and at a cost which a large number of users, especially in industry, are prepared to pay. A Post Office spokesman recently said publicly that users are now connected to the system for about 600 hours a week all told. That probably means at least 2,000 searches for information a week. Access is also available, at comparable cost, to nearly 20 files held in Rome by the space documentation service of the European Space Agency, the membership of which includes the United Kingdom.
The Government have played their part in the creation of a European network for scientific and technical information, using up-to-date technology. The new network, EURONET, is expected to come into being next year and will provide easy and wide access to computer-held files in other EEC capitals. Let me give a few rough figures. At present, the "communications" element of cost in reaching California from London is about £13 an hour. New linking equipment, which will soon be in service, will reduce this cost to £8 an hour. The cost of reaching any EEC capital through EURONET has been fixed at less than £3 an hour. The potential attractions of EURONET are such that several non-EEC countries have already asked whether they can be linked to it. In due course, EURONET will be absorbed in to a public-service network handling all kinds of traffic, not just scientific and technical information.
From what I have said my hon. Friend will realise that it would be possible for this country to become wholly reliant on foreign sources of supply—in the United States and in Western Europe, where several countries, notably France and the Federal Republic of Germany, are spending a considerable amount of money on the creation of new files of information and on providing access to these and other files through computer-based service agencies. But we ought not to become dangerously dependent in such a sensitive area.
Accordingly, the British Library and the Department of Industry have cooperated in the creation of two informa-

tion service agencies, which are known as BLAISE and Info-line. BLAISE—that is, the British Library Automated Information Service—has been created largely to provide a national cataloguing facility. In creating it, the British Library has responded to sustained pressure from librarians. But it is also providing an information retrieval service in medicine. Info-line, which comes into operation later this year, will offer information retrieval services mainly of interest to industry and will build up a range of services distinctly different from those of any other service supplier. It is an interesting experiment in partnership.
I can assure my hon. Friend that all the Government action that I have mentioned results from careful weighing up of evidence for and against it. As my Department has made clear to him on several occasions, its own direct expenditure on information retrieval has been concentrated to a large extent on research, now financed by the R and D department of the British Library. The scepticism with which use of computers was originally viewed was backed by a widespread desire to discover, through research, what computer techniques could and could not do, and how far their use was economically justifiable, or might become justifiable, as technology advanced and comparative costs changed. We were accordingly prepared to support a variety of research on computer applications in order to establish useful data for decision making.
The research of this period has largely run its course and has made a substantial impact on thinking among information suppliers and users in this country. Partly because of it, United Kingdom users, I believe, are particularly well informed about computer-based services, what services exist, how to use them effectively and economically, what day-to-day problems they create and how these can be overcome.
My hon. Friend mentioned specifically and in some detail the Scientific Documentation Centre, which is contained in his constituency. It would seem to me better if those in charge of that centre, perhaps along with my hon. Friend, were to discuss these matters with the British Library rather than be subject to a debate in this House. I understand that the British Library board has suggested


several times that my hon. Friend and Dr. Davison should discuss their complaints with the British Library, but that offer has not yet been taken up.
I also understand that a Scottish member of the British Library board offered to take up Dr. Davison's case for support of research and put it before the board. I am quite certain that it is the British Library board which should ultimately make a decision on the particular value of the manual operations of a service such as the Scientific Documentation Centre.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the Oxford evaluation study. Again I take the view, as does the British Library, that, if Dr. Davison feels that his interpretation of the findings is correct, the best course would be to allow the results to be published and independently assessed. This is a sensitive area which is far better dealt with in that way rather than to be subject to a parliamentary debate.
On a number of occasions my hon. Friend has argued that the Government have neglected manual operations and have placed their trust blindly in highly sophisticated computers. I hope that from what I have said he will accept that our trust is not blind but is based on practical reasoning, research and experiment. Frankly, I do not think that any public inquiry into this matter is necessary. I believe that we must continue in the way in which we are progressing at present. If there is scope for manual operations in all this, the case will have to be made on its merits, just as the case for computers has been made. If sensible proposals on this are to be made to any Government Department or agency, I am quite sure that they will be given proper consideration, as, indeed has happened hereto.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to One o'clock p.m.